Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202014224)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014224

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

16 June 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. the resident’s reports of ASB from February 2020 to April 2021.
2. the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) between October 2017 and February 2020.
3. the resident’s wish to be compensated for a loss of earnings and stress caused by the ASB.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, complaints 1b and 1c are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reports of ASB between October 2017 and February 2020

In correspondence to this Service, the resident has explained that he moved to the property in August 2017. He says that approximately two months later, he wrote to the landlord to raise some initial concerns about his upstairs neighbour and noise transference. The resident continued to report concerns throughout 2018 and 2019.
While the resident’s comments are not disputed, paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate 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 six months of the matters arising. As such, while the resident’s concerns are understood, the Ombudsman cannot investigate historic issues dating back to 2017 as part of this complaint.
The landlord regarded the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint on 13 August 2020. We have therefore considered the resident’s reports of ASB, and the landlord’s handling of the matter, in the six months prior to this until the complaints procedure was exhausted in April 2021. As such, the period we have investigated is from February 2020 to April 2021. Matters that occurred prior to February 2020 have been referred to in the report for the purpose of providing context only.

Compensation for a loss of earnings and stress caused by the ASB

In correspondence to this Service, the resident has advised that he was unable to work owing to the ASB and associated sleep deprivation. He therefore wishes to be compensated for a loss of earnings. The resident has also advised that the ASB has been the cause of significant stress for him, and that he wishes to be compensated for this.
While the resident’s comments about the effect of the ASB on him are not disputed, this is not a matter which the Ombudsman can investigate or order compensation in respect of. Paragraph 39(i) states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
The Ombudsman can consider actions or omissions that are the cause of distress and inconvenience to a resident – and can order compensation in respect of this. However, a claim for loss of earnings and stress is best considered by the court. A court can instruct medical experts who can advise on whether a series of circumstances will have prevented the claimant from fulfilling the duties associated with their job. In addition, a medical professional would also be best placed to comment on the impact of any ASB on an individual. The Ombudsman cannot make such assessments or findings; and as such, this complaint falls outside of our jurisdiction.

Background and summary of events

Background to the complaint

The resident is a tenant of the landlord’s property. The property is a one-bedroom flat in a residential building. The resident has explained that for several years he has been experiencing noise nuisance from his upstairs neighbour (Ms B). He also has concerns that Ms B’s son interfered with the fabric and construction of the property while he resided with her. The resident had expressed his opinion that as a result, he can hear Ms B’s movements in every room of the property.
While the period prior to February 2020 has not been investigated as part of this complaint, it is noted that the landlord and the resident had been in frequent correspondence about the ASB during 2018 and 2019. The Ombudsman has been provided with evidence that shows that the landlord had asked the resident to complete incident logs, and to use the Noise App service to record incidents on. Ms B’s property was visited by a surveyor, who confirmed that the floor was concrete and carpeted. The landlord had also spoken with other residents, who confirmed that they had not witnessed any noise nuisance.
It is also noted that the Environmental Health Team had installed noise recording equipment in the property in September 2019. On listening to the recordings, the Environmental Health Team advised that general living noise could be heard, but that the evidence did not represent a statutory nuisance. Given the resident’s continued reporting, the landlord offered mediation as a means of resolving the situation at the beginning of 2020. The resident declined the offer, as there had not been a falling out between him and Ms B and he did not see what benefit mediation would have.

Summary of events

The resident made a number of reports of noise nuisance, and provided sound recordings from February 2020 onwards. The resident also emailed the landlord to describe his situation and how the noise issues were affecting him. The reports have not been detailed in full, but have been summarised as follows:
1. March 2020 – the resident continued to report that he had been woken by noises emanating from Ms B’s property. The resident advised that the noise continued into the early hours and there was no indication of it stopping. The case notes surrounding this period refer to mediation and a referral being made.
There was an absence of reporting between April and June from the evidence provided to this service; however, the resident began to report disturbances again in July 2020, as follows:
1. 22 July – the resident advised that a recording had been sent of noise that had taken place that day. The resident added that the noise started typically after midnight, but would continue into the early hours. The landlord’s Independent Living Manager responded to this on 24 July and advised that “if the recording was a one off” during day time hours, she felt it was an acceptable level if the resident was carrying out DIY. However, if this noise was persisting at night, that was not acceptable. The member of staff advised that she would arrange to review the case in more detail to see what measures could be put in place.
2. 28 July – the resident reported that Ms B created a disturbance that could be heard through to the early hours of 4am. The resident advised that he had made 20 recordings over a three-hour period capturing some of the disturbance.
3. 31 July – the resident confirmed he had received a voicemail message advising that staff would be speaking with Ms B about the noise. However, he would not be staying at the property to save himself from harm. He had submitted 50 recordings over the last 10 days, and these disturbances had all taken place in the early hours, leaving him sleep deprived.
4. 3 August – the resident emailed the landlord to confirmed that recent recordings had been submitted. The resident added that he had been away from the property to avoid the noise, but as the landlord was not taking any action he considered it best to continue providing supporting evidence.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 August 2020 to express concern about how it had handled his reports of ASB. The resident said that since the beginning of his tenancy, Ms B had “unleashed pure and utter madness” upon him. He had warned the landlord about it, but it did not appear to be reading the information he had sent. He had previously informed the landlord that he had to leave the property owing to the noise being made by Ms B, and owing to a lack of response, he had become homeless. In a further email on 13 August, the resident advised that he had been made homeless as a result of the noise. He added that he had been advising the landlord as such for the previous two weeks. The resident expressed concern that despite his reports dating back to 2017, the landlord had been “static”, and no action had been taken against Ms B.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 13 August and advised that due to the level of emails it had been receiving from him, and the nature of the issue, it had decided to log the correspondence as a formal complaint. The landlord provided a reference number and advised that the investigating officer would provide a response within 20 working days.
Meanwhile, the resident continued to report instances of ASB. The investigating officer contacted the resident and asked if they could meet face to face to discuss the case, and the resident’s concerns. The resident accepted the invitation, and the meeting went ahead on 17 September.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 September 2020 to express some concerns about the meeting. Within his email, he said:
1. He was surprised that the investigating officer had “little or no representation” with her – and that she only appeared to have an A4 pad with little, or no information.
2. He was also worried that a named member of staff had been in attendance when he had previously raised concerns about her conduct.
3. The investigating officer was the ninth member of staff to have a chance to look at the issues, but was not aware of the serious nature of the matter.
4. The meeting was not productive and the investigating officer had told him “nothing” which he had not already heard.
Further reports of noise nuisance were made through to October 2020, and the resident continued to email the landlord with his concerns. The resident also chased a response to his complaint during this period. The investigating officer wrote to the resident with a complaint response on 28 October. Within this, she said:
1. Since moving to the property, the resident had made a number of reports of noise nuisance regarding his neighbour.
2. None of the complaints had been upheld; and while the resident had provided noise recordings, it was “impossible” to find any evidence to support the claims. In the recordings in which noise was present, the banging sounds were in the foreground and not the background.
3. It had tried to manage the resident’s expectations. However, when it was explained that a judge would not be willing to evict an elderly woman – especially with no evidence to support legal action – the resident was unwilling to accept this.
4. It considered that it had explored every report made by the resident, including working with surveyors, repairs and environmental health to try to find the cause of the issues. However, nobody had been able to find evidence of the claims that had been made regarding Ms B’s behaviour.
5. Last year, staff had asked for permission to contact the resident’s GP and mental health team due to welfare concerns. Another referral was made the previous week given “extremely concerning emails” that had been received.
6. It was closing the complaint, and any future correspondence regarding noise would be dealt with by a named member of staff.
The resident responded on the same day to express dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. Within his email, the resident raised a number of concerns, and said:
1. It was not clear what evidence the landlord had considered.
2. In July that year, another member of staff had made a categorical statement that the disturbances were unacceptable, but then she was subsequently removed from the investigation.
3. The landlord had concealed evidence, and was choosing to ignore what it had heard.
Following this, the resident continued to report instances of noise nuisance. The records show that during November the resident had advised that the noises were continuing. The landlord made the decision to focus on the resident during this period as it had concerns about his welfare. A referral was made to the resident’s GP and the mental health team; and the records indicate that the landlord also made further enquiries with the resident’s neighbours to see if they had heard any similar noises emanating from Ms B’s property.
Towards the end of 2020, it was noted that Ms B had been admitted to hospital. However, the resident advised that the noises were continuing. The resident continued to report noise disturbance through the beginning of 2021. The landlord advised that a case was open, and that his communication would be added to the case. The records for February 2021 suggest that during this period the landlord was considering whether something outside of the building could have been causing or contributing to the noise. However, it is unclear what the outcome of this investigation was. The landlord was also giving consideration to comments that had been provided by the resident’s girlfriend about her experience of the noise issues.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman in February 2021. Within his communication, the resident advised that he had experienced ASB in the form of noise nuisance from his first night at the property, and that despite over 1000 audio recordings, 1500 incident reports and police involvement, the landlord had not taken any action. It was not clear whether the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and so we made further enquiries.
The landlord’s records for March and April 2021 show that some discussion had taken place surrounding sound proofing, or installing carpet within the resident’s property as it had no floor coverings.
On 13 April, we asked the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns and issue a final response to the complaint. The landlord issued a stage two response to the resident’s complaint on 21 April 2021. Within this, it said:
1. It had investigated all previous correspondence relating to the stage one complaint, and had spoken at length with colleagues within the tenancy solutions team, who were dealing with the ASB related aspects of the complaint.
2. It understood that the resident’s complaint was that he believed that numerous allegations of ASB were not handled fairly or effectively.
3. It also understood that the resident had met with the tenancy solutions team leader (team leader) in October 2020. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the resident’s concerns further. However, this was a “difficult meeting”, and the resident was “unnecessarily aggressive and verbally abuse” to the team leader.
4. The team leader had reiterated that the resident’s reports had been fully investigated, but that there was no evidence to support his allegations of noise nuisance. The recordings which the resident had provided proved “nothing more than an elderly person moving about their flat, which is not unusual and do not constitute ASB”.
5. The team had continued to offer the resident support; however, it was accepted that clearer information should have been provided when closing the resident’s complaint in October 2020. This was an oversight, but it wished to apologise. It added that it had discussed the importance of clear communication surrounding a case closure with staff.
6. It was satisfied that the team continued to offer the resident assistance. As such, there was no reason to pursue allegations via the complaints process.
7. If the resident remained dissatisfied with the response he had received, he could refer the matter to a designated person or the Ombudsman.
The landlord provided this Service with a copy of the stage two response on 5 May. We subsequently contacted the resident to enquire whether he wished for us to investigate the complaint; and if so, what his outstanding concerns were.
The resident responded on 17 May. He said:
1. The landlord had not addressed his concerns.
2. He had incurred rent arrears as a result of having to leave his flat and seek refuge elsewhere. He could not stay at the property owing to the ASB, and the effect it was having on his wellbeing.
3. He was unable to work owing to the impact of the ASB and had lost income as a result.
4. His ASB case had been mismanaged and that the issues had not been addressed by the landlord.
5. While contractors had visited the property to install soundproofing, works were yet to be completed, and he therefore continued to be exposed to the ASB.
6. The landlord had deleted evidence supplied by other parties involved and that to put things right, it should compensate him, or overlook ret arrears, so that he could move on.
On 21 June, the resident contacted us to advise that despite sending contractors to the property, the landlord had advised that it would not be proceeding with soundproofing. However, it would be providing carpet as a solution to the noise transference issues that had been reported. The resident expressed concern that this would not resolve the problem, and that he continued to experience ASB on a daily basis.

Landlord policies and procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy defines “antisocial behaviour” as conduct that has cause, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person; conduct that is capable or causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The policy states that to prevent and discourage ASB, the landlord will use a range of early intervention strategies including mediation, warning letters, tenancy cautions, family support referrals and the use of acceptable behaviour contracts.
The landlord’s policy provides that it will encourage and support complainants to continue to live in their home. To support people who report ASB, it will consider a full investigation to gather evidence, an agreed action plan, an interview with the alleged perpetrator(s), interventions such as mediation, working with the police, and installation of CCTV amongst other measures.
The landlord’s Complaints policy (October 2017) provides that the landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure. At stage one, the complaints co-ordinator, or appropriate manager, will consider the complaint and issue a response within 10 working days. If the complaint cannot be resolved at stage 1, it will be escalated to stage two where a senior manager will review the complaint and “arrive at an appropriate outcome”.
With regards to timescales, the policy states that complaints will be acknowledged within three working days of receipt. A full response will be issued within 10 working days – or a letter will be sent advising of a delay with the expected date for a response. If the resident advises that they remain unhappy, it will respond within 10 working days of that notification.

Assessment and findings

When investigating complaints about ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether the ASB occurred as alleged. Rather, the Ombudsman’s role is to review the evidence that is available and decide whether the landlord acted in line with its policies, procedures and any other relevant guidance when responding to the resident’s reports.
Having reviewed the evidence provided by both parties, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports from February 2020 onwards was not appropriate.
As detailed above, on 24 July, on receipt of the resident’s report and sound recording, a member of staff confirmed that she could hear the noise that had been described. She added that if the noise was a one-off, that would be acceptable. However, as the resident had advised that it continued through the night, the member of staff said that she would carry out a review of the case history to see what action could be taken.
The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence which shows that such a review took place. This was inappropriate. The landlord had confirmed that noises could be heard, and had advised that it would be considering what action could be taken in the circumstances. It follows that the resident was left with some expectation that action would be taken, and it was not. It is also noted that when the resident raised his formal complaint, he had explicitly referred to this interaction. The evidence does not suggest that the landlord investigated this further, and it failed to address it when responding to the complaint. This was a missed opportunity to try to address some of the resident’s concerns, and a failing in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The resident continued to report ASB, and despite this, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord was proactively managing an ASB case. While the reports were acknowledged, the landlord did not indicate what action it would be taking to investigate the reports. The evidence provided to this Service does not demonstrate how the landlord had considered the resident’s reports during this period either. If the landlord did not consider that further investigation was necessary, this should have been clearly detailed within the ASB file together with the reasons why. It would have also been appropriate to advise the resident as such – together with the reasons why. It is noted that after the resident’s complaint in October 2020, actions were detailed within the ASB file between November 2020 and July 2021. However, there is an absence of any information being recorded between March 2020 and November 2020, and this is indicative of poor record keeping and poor case management.
The landlord’s ASB policy refers to an action plan being agreed with the victim. By 2020, the resident had been reporting ASB for three years. There is no evidence within the file that an action plan had been agreed at any time in 2020. It is noted that the landlord was carrying out case reviews from November 2020 onwards; however, there is no evidence which shows that a plan was discussed and/or agreed with the resident. While it is acknowledged that a plan may have been agreed prior to 2020, there is no evidence which shows that the landlord was actively managing the situation and the resident’s reports. As detailed above, the evidence does show that the resident’s reports were being acknowledged; however, it is not clear what the landlord was doing on receipt of them. As such, the resident was left with the impression that his reports – and the situation in relation to the ASB – was being ignored.
At the beginning of 2021, the landlord began to explore the option of installing sound proofing within the property, in addition to carpet. It is noted that the landlord subsequently decided not to proceed with the sound proofing for cost reasons. While it is acknowledged that the resident would have been disappointed by this, there is no obligation on the landlord– under the tenancy agreement or otherwise – to install sound proofing. As such, this was not a failing by the landlord. It is not clear from the evidence provided to this Service if the carpet installation has gone ahead. If this has yet to be undertaken, the landlord should get in touch with the resident and make plans accordingly.
Based on the evidence that is available, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports between February and October 2020. It is noted that after the stage one complaint response was issued, there was an increase in communication between landlord staff and the resident, and this was reflected in the ASB case file. However, overall, the landlord failed to handle the resident’s reports appropriately and in line with its ASB policy. The landlord should reasonably have identified this when it investigated the resident’s complaint in both October 2020 and April 2021. That the landlord did not was a further failing and a missed opportunity to try to put things right.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was not appropriate. On 13 August 2020, the landlord advised that it would be raising a formal complaint given the resident’s concerns. While the complaint was acknowledged in line with the timescales detailed in the landlord’s complaint policy, the landlord’s handling of the matter following this departed significantly from the policy.
As detailed above, when the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, it advised that a response would be provided within 20 working days. The landlord explained that owing to Covid-19 related issues it had departed from its usual 10 working day response time. While it was appropriate to inform the resident of the adjusted timeframe, the stage one response was issued after 54 working days – 34 days outside of the landlord’s timescale.
It is noted that landlord staff had met with the resident during this period – while this was not inappropriate, it was a departure from the complaints policy. Given that the process set out in the policy was not being followed, it would have been appropriate to provide an explanation about how the complaint was being considered and to confirm that the complaint response would be issued after the meeting. The evidence does not suggest that the landlord provided any such explanation, and after the meeting the resident was left to chase the complaint response. This was not appropriate. In addition, when the response was sent the landlord failed to acknowledge that it was significantly delayed, and this was a further failing in its handling of the matter.
When the complaint correspondence was shared with the resident, it did not make it clear that it constituted a response at stage one of the landlord’s complaint procedure. It would have been reasonable for the correspondence to have been marked as such, and for escalation rights to have been offered towards the bottom. When the landlord issued its stage two response, it acknowledged that the “case closure” part of the stage one response could have been better explained, and apologised to the resident for any inconvenience that may have been caused. It is not clear what the landlord was referring to here. While it is acknowledged that an ASB case may be closed if it decided that no further action is warranted, the correspondence was a response to the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports. The landlord’s complaints policy clearly states that the complaints process has two stages – and there is no reference to a case automatically being closed upon the stage one response being issued. As such, the case should not have been closed after the correspondence was issued; rather, it should have remained open, and the resident should have been advised of the action he could take if he was unhappy with the complaint response he had received. This was a significant failing at stage one of the process, and should reasonably have been identified when the complaint was considered at stage two.
Within the stage one response, the landlord advised that while recordings had been provided, they did not corroborate the resident’s reports. It added that while noise could be heard, it was in the foreground and not the background. In response, the resident advised that this was his precise concern – that the level of noise was of such a nature that it could be heard loudly within the property. In the circumstances, the landlord should reasonably have provided more explanation around its consideration of the recordings. If the landlord considered that noises were being made within the resident’s property, as opposed to the recordings capturing noise transference from Ms B’s property, then it would have been reasonable to explicitly state this and address the resident’s comments.
In addition, given the nature of the allegations, it may have been beneficial for the landlord to provide more detail about the distinction between noise nuisance and day-to-day living noise within the complaint response. This could have been elaborated on further to describe the types of noise that would constitute noise nuisance and warrant action. While the landlord had advised that it had tried to manage the resident’s expectations, its attempts to do so are not clear from the evidence provided to this Service.
In its response to the complaint, the landlord did advise of the actions it had taken in the past – including having surveyors visit both properties. This was appropriate action to take, as it was important to establish if there was a repair issue, or a problem with the building, which was leading to increased noise transference. However, the response was rather general, and in the circumstances, it would have been reasonable to include the details of the actions taken. For example, the dates on which visits were carried out; and the period during which other residents had been spoken to. This would have helped to demonstrate not just how the resident’s reports had been considered, but also that the landlord had been consistent in applying its ASB policy.
Having reviewed the evidence provided by both parties, there is also evidence of a wider failing in relation to the complaint handling. While our investigation of the ASB has focused on incidents from February 2020 onwards, it was noted within the evidence that on 15 June 2019 the resident had sought to raise a formal complaint. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and provided a response on 4 July 2019. As with this complaint, the email did not state that the correspondence was a formal complaint response, nor did it provide the resident with information about what he could do if he disagreed with the outcome.
In the circumstances, if the landlord had provided the resident with information about escalating his complaint, he would have had the opportunity for his concerns to be considered at stage two of the landlord’s process. If following this he remained dissatisfied, the matter could have been referred to this Service for an independent investigation; and we could have considered the landlord’s handling of his reports between December 2018 and June 2019. As the resident was not provided with any such information, he continued to raise grievances about how the landlord was handling his ASB reports until a complaint was raised again in October 2020.
While the Ombudsman has not investigated matters prior to February 2020, it is concerning that another complaint response had been issued without an appropriate header, and with escalation or referral rights missing. By not informing residents of their rights, they are left without recourse; and they are not provided with the opportunity to have their concerns investigated by either another member of landlord staff, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman. This is a significant failing in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.
The landlord’s complaints policy (both October 2017 and April 2021 versions) details that if a resident is unhappy with the response at stage one, they can request for their complaint to be escalated. It is therefore unclear why staff had failed to handle the resident’s complaints in such a manner. The landlord should now take steps to put things right, including trying to identify why staff had departed from the complaints policy, and issuing a reminder to staff so that it is applied correctly in the future.
When the landlord issued its stage two response to the complaint, it focused largely on the response that was issued at stage one of the process. While there was discussion about the resident’s reports, the landlord failed to provide any detail about the investigations it had undertaken with reference to dates. In addition, the landlord made no reference to the options that it was exploring at the time – such as sound proofing or laying carpet. It would have been reasonable to provide a summary of the then current position, and to advise what was likely to happen going forward. As detailed above, the response did not identify that the stage one response was significantly delayed, nor did it acknowledge that it had failed to inform the resident about his rights and its complaints procedure. This was a further failing by the landlord, and a missed opportunity to try to put things right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports was inappropriate and not in line with its ASB policy. The evidence provide to the Ombudsman does not show what consideration the landlord gave to the resident’s reports or how they were investigated. The lack of information within the resident’s ASB file is also indicative of poor record keeping. In addition, the evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord was proactively managing the resident’s ASB case for a period of approximately six months. While there was some improvement in the management of the resident’s case between December 2020 and April 2021, the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s reports was inappropriate.
The landlord departed significantly from its complaints policy when handling the resident’s complaint. The stage one response was delayed by a considerable period, and this was not acknowledged by the landlord. The stage one response was not clearly labelled and failed to provide any information about the resident’s right to escalate his complaint. This investigation has also identified that this was not the first occasion on which such a failing had occurred. Both the stage one and stage two complaint responses were lacking in detail and the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had handled the resident’s reports in line with its ASB policy.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident a total of £750 comprised of:
  1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
  2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling and record keeping.
Within six weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should:
1. Remind staff of the importance of keeping a clear record of any interactions relating to ASB within the resident’s case file.
2. Conduct an investigation into its complaint handling and try to establish why its policy had not been adhered to in the resident’s case. The outcome of this investigation should be shared with the Ombudsman.
3. Remind staff that complaint responses should be appropriately headed, and that escalation and/or referral rights should be offered within the correspondence.
4. Contact the resident to discuss the current situation and to agree on an action plan going forward.

Recommendations

If carpet has yet to be installed within the resident’s property, the landlord should take steps now to ensure that this is completed.