Saxon Weald (202014246)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014246

Saxon Weald

29 June 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 response to the:
1. Reports of noise disturbance and anti-social behaviour (ASB) at the resident’s previous property.
2. Request for assistance towards removal costs.
3. Request for repairs to the front door at the current property.
4. Reports of damp and mould in the current property.
5. Related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a tenancy which commenced on 4 February 2021. The resident is a tenant of the housing association. The resident held a previous tenancy with the same landlord from 22 March 2013 to 3 February 2021.
The current property is described as a one-bedroom flat.
The resident has informed this service that he has vulnerabilities. He has learning difficulties, mental health and suffers from Tourette’s.
The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property including the front door.
The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as “conduct which is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person and which directly or indirectly relates to, or affects, the housing management functions of a relevant landlord;” or “conduct which consists of or involves using or threatening to use housing accommodation owned or managed by a relevant landlord for an unlawful purpose.”
The ASB policy defines noise as persistent domestic noise, neighbour disturbance, violence and hate incidents. It states that an action plan should be agreed with the resident to assess the risk to the resident and agree any support needs. If a report of violence or threat of violence is received, the police should be notified. Furthermore, it sets out its non-legal remedies as: mediation, the issue of warning letters or moving residents to another property.
The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure says that it considers that an unsafe external door is the responsibility of the landlord. Tenants are responsible for the repairs to internal doors and remedying draughts to doors and windows. Emergency repairs are carried out within 24 hours and all other repairs are completed within 10 working days.
The landlord’s letting procedure explains that it does not have its own transfer waiting list. It will use management transfers, where there is a serious risk to personal safety, harassment and where it has been unable to resolve ASB.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it operates a two-stage complaint procedure. At the first stage, complaints will be answered within three working days and within 10 working days at the final stage.
The landlord’s compensation and payments policy says that a gesture of good will can be made when its residents has experienced hard or challenging circumstances. Discretionary payments are used to recognise the inconvenience or distress experienced by a customer. It provides guidance on the payment amount that can be award ranging from a low to major impact.
The resident’s complaints concern two of his neighbours who are tenants of the landlord. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the tenancy agreements for his neighbours, but it would be reasonable to conclude that the same, or similar tenancy conditions apply as to the resident.

Scope of complaint.

The resident has complained that he experienced noise disturbance at his previous property for at least nine years, which was not resolved by his landlord. Although it is noted that there is a long history of ASB reports by the resident, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s more recent reports from November 2019 which were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint response. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider their issues whilst they are still live and the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
The resident has said that the landlord’s decision not to move Tenant B earlier was a factor in the attack that he experienced. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Summary of events

The resident emailed the landlord on 8 November 2019 to complain about noise disturbance from Tenant A, who lived upstairs. He complained he was disturbed by the noise made by Tenant A at 5am and by the noise created by the poor plumbing in the building. He advised that he had experienced the noise disturbance for at least 10 years and he wanted it to stop. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email and advised that a surveyor would attend on 11 November 2019.
The resident emailed this service on three occasions in January 2020 to advise that he was trying to make a complaint to the landlord about noise disturbance from Tenant A that was causing him sleep deprivation.
The following day, the resident sent the same email to his landlord. At the same time, he reported noise disturbance from Tenant B who lived downstairs. He advised that once her carers arrived, they were slamming cupboards and doors which had woken him up from his sleep.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 February 2020 following a meeting it held with him on 3 February 2020. It advised that it had addressed his concerns about the communal repairs he had raised. The landlord offered compensation of £100, broken down as £50 for the delay in repairing the handrail to the banister and for £50 for the delay in rectifying the blockage to the communal drain.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 8 February 2020 asking it to investigate the resident’s complaints about noise disturbance, ASB and damp and mould in the property. The landlord informed this Service that the letter dated 6 February 2020 was its stage one complaint response and that it was investigating the resident’s complaint at the final stage of the complaint procedure.
The landlord’s records show that in March 2020:
1. Resident reported noise disturbances from Tenant A and alleged that Tenant B was dealing drugs.
2. Resident reported on more than one occasion the smell of cannabis in the building.
3. Resident reported that he believed that someone had a “contract out on him” and that “five black men were going to attack him.”
In response, the landlord agreed to meet with the resident to discuss the concerns that he has made and requested that the resident provide a convenient time to meet.
On 18 March 2020, the landlord issued a breach of tenancy warning letter to the resident. It advised that it had received reports that the resident had verbally abused Tenant B and her carers. It would monitor the situation and if the nuisance ceased, it would not take further action.
The resident made further reports of noise disturbance from Tenant A and Tenant B. Also, he reported the smell of cannabis to the police. The landlord informed the resident that the Covid 19 pandemic had introduced lock down restrictions. Therefore, it had to cancel the proposed visit to discuss his reports of noise disturbance and allegations of drug dealing.
On 23 April 2020 after this Service wrote to the landlord requesting that it answer the resident’s complaint, it spoke to the resident. It discussed the ASB, noise disturbance and repairs required to the property. It agreed that the resident should keep a log of the noise disturbance or download the noise app. Once the Covid-19 restrictions were lifted, it would arrange for noise monitoring equipment to be installed.
The landlord discussed with the resident the possibility of a management transfer in June 2020 as he did not want to remain in his tenancy. The landlord chased the resident for the completion of the transfer form. In response, the resident advised that he was having difficulty using the website to identify the areas that the landlord had properties in.
In August 2020 the resident made further reports of noise disturbance from Tenant B. He described that each morning the carers entering her property was noisy. The landlord received a counter allegation that the resident was banging and slamming doors. In response, the landlord suggested that the resident consider mediation to improve the relationship with Tenant B. It also referred the resident to the NHS prevention and assessment team (PAT) for support and informed the resident that on reading his email correspondence, it sometimes could not understand the issues the resident was raising. It requested that his communication be clearer.
The resident advised that his preference was to remain at the property and to resolve the issue with his neighbour.
On 10 August 2020 the landlord made the referral to the mediation service.
Following contact with this Service, the landlord contacted the resident on 13 August 2020 to discuss his complaint about the handling of the ASB and noise disturbance. Also, that the landlord had not considered his learning disability.
On 19 August 2020, the landlord met with the resident at its office. It observed the Covid 19 pandemic social distancing restrictions and discussed:
1. Tenant B –
  1. The resident explained that he had experienced noise disturbance from her carers who arrived between 6.55am to 8am. The carers woke him up by slamming doors and the opening and closing of kitchen cupboards. Also, he could hear the carers gossiping to other neighbours about him and playing her sub-woofer daily at a loud volume.
2. Management transfer.
  1. Resident advised that he had a support network in place so he did not want to move from the property.
3. Communication
  1. Resident advised that he did not know the best way for the landlord to communicate with him. He agreed to the landlord’s suggestion of a weekly call with the landlord.
Following further reports of noise disturbance from the resident, the landlord contacted the NHS PAT regarding the referral it had made as it was concerned about the resident’s mental health. The NHS PAT informed that landlord that it did not intend to take any action regarding the referral it had received.
The resident made further reports of noise disturbance from Tenant B in September 2020 and November 2020. The resident requested that the landlord sound proof his flat.
The landlord made a referral to the Environmental Health Service (EHS) on 19 November 2020 for sound monitoring equipment. In response, the EHS requested that the landlord inform Tenant B of the need to install the equipment.
On 4 January 2021, the resident informed the landlord that he had been assaulted. The landlord discussed the attack with the resident on 13 January 2021 where he advised that he was attacked leaving the flat at 9.30pm on 1 January 2021. The resident said that he believed that the perpetuator was either someone who was after his friend or someone known to Tenant B. The resident also advised that he wanted to move out of the area.
The landlord informed the resident that as he did not have a local connection with the area he wished to move to, he did not qualify for housing in that area. It discussed with the resident the prospect of a management move.
On 21 January 2021, the landlord completed an application for an emergency/ management transfer. This considered his vulnerability, medical conditions and mental health. Also, that the resident did not feel safe in the area.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 27 January 2021 about the offer of a new property. The resident informed the landlord that his father would need to know about the removal arrangements including the removal costs.
The resident’s new tenancy started on 4 February 2021. The resident informed the landlord on 7 February 2021 that he had to leave his belongings in the shed as he did not have enough space in the van to take them with him. He explained that during the removal some of his belongings were broken and that he lost belongings to the value of £150.
The landlord received an email on 8 February 2021. The email is redacted, but from the content it appears to be from the resident’s father which confirmed that the removal of the resident’s belongings took place the previous Thursday. The receipt for the removal was provided for £450 and confirmed that the landlord had agreed to pay £225 towards the resident’s removal costs.
On 25 May 2021, the resident complained about the condition of the property. He explained that the property was draughty: the heating was not working properly throughout the property and the windows needed sealing. He advised that the actual cost for the removal was £600 and the value of the property left behind in the shed came to £700. In addition, the removal company had caused £800 of damage. He stated that if he had known that Tenant B was leaving her tenancy, the costs he incurred could have been avoided as he could have remained in his former tenancy.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 June 2021. In summary, it set out that the resident had attended an accompanied viewing with his father on 1 February 2021. It had reviewed the pictures and the property condition appeared good. Repairs had been carried out to the left-hand kitchen window and the window seals had been checked. It paid the removal fees as a gesture of good will as it does not normally do this. His father had paid the removal fees and it did not intend to make any further payments. It had written to the resident before he left his former tenancy advising that he had to clear all items from the property and sign posted him to the removal company regarding the damaged items.
It advised that it could not give the resident information about Tenant B as this was against the General Data Protection Act and informed him of different ways to find accommodation if the present property was no longer suitable. It confirmed that going forward it would not discuss his former tenancy and requested for a suitable date to meet with him.
The resident responded to the landlord’s emails on 10 June 2021 and 15 June 2021. He maintained that the landlord was responsible for the removal costs. He expressed that if the landlord had dealt sooner with the reported noise disturbance he would not have had to move and that due to the landlord’s inaction he was attacked at the previous property. Furthermore, the landlord was aware that he had changed his name by deed poll and when it had forwarded his post from his old address to his current address, his former name had been disclosed. Consequently, his neighbours was aware of his former name and he was experiencing threatening behaviour from his neighbours. He did not feel safe and requested to be moved again.
The landlord’s records show that on 16 June 2021 that the resident reported that his front door was not closing. The repair was recorded as an emergency. The landlord attended and reported that the front door was secure. The operative repaired the split to the frame, eased and adjusted the door. It noted that the resident had fitted a draught excluder to the frame inside the property and the door had to be pushed slightly to get one of the mortice locks to engage.
On 21 June 2021, this Service wrote to the landlord requesting that it respond to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s repair records record the following repairs raised by the housing manager on 22 June 2021.
1. Repair the isolator switch to the bedroom storage heater and secure the heater to the wall. Repair the bathroom heater which is not working. The repairs are recorded as a standard repair and were closed on 2 July 2021.
2. Repair faulty kitchen and bathroom extractor fans. On 12 July 2021, an operative attended and released the blades to the kitchen extractor fan and cleared the dust from the bathroom extractor fan. The repairs were closed on 12 July 2021.
3. Replace the security strap to the bedroom window. On 20 September 2021, an operative attended to clear and reseal the beading to the window. The hinges were changed and the window resealed.
4. Repair a hole in the electric cupboard. An operative attended on 14 July 2021 to fill the hole with fire foam to reseal.
The landlord’s internal records note on 14 July 2021 that the police had advised that they were not investigating the incident that occurred on 1 January 2021. Also, it had no evidence that Tenant B was involved in the attack on the resident.
On 5 August 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it was catching up on repairs due to the Covid 19 pandemic. It recorded the following repairs:
1. Front door.
  1. Since the front door had been adjusted, the front door does not fit properly. The landlord’s repair records noted that it had attended on 29 September 2020 to refix the draught excluder to the bottom of the door.
2. Kitchen and bathroom extractor fans,
  1. The casing and covers have not been fitted tightly therefore, when it is windy, polystyrene balls from the installation fly into the room. The landlord noted that the sleeve in the wall may not be fitted correctly and it attended on 7 December 2021 to service the extractor fan. At the visit it sealed the bottom of the extractor fans and resecured the fans to the wall.
3. The bathroom door frame and architrave needs checking.
4. Bedroom storage heaters.
  1. The storage heaters had not been fitted securely to the wall and were likely to fall. The landlord’s repair records show that it attended on 29 September 2021 to refix the support legs to the bottom of the storage heater.
5. Guttering dislodged.
  1. The guttering above the satellite dish looks dislodged.
The landlord provided its final stage complaint response on 10 August 2021. It explained that it was aware that the resident remained dissatisfied as it had been unable to resolve some of the resident’s concerns to his satisfaction. A summary of the key findings are:
1. Handling of ASB at his previous property
  1. Recognised that it had not opened an ASB case with regard to the resident’s reports of ASB and noise disturbance until November 2020. Instead, it had progressed his concerns as part of Tenant B ASB case which it had opened in March 2020.
  2. Advised that it had referred the resident to mediation. However, it accepted that it did not know which party had not agreed to the sessions taking place.
  3. Discussed the best way to resolve the ASB from Tenant B. It was aware that the resident did not want to move from his former tenancy and that the resident’s preferred outcome was for Tenant B to move. However, it had insufficient evidence to approve a move for Tenant B.
  4. Explained that at times, it found it difficult to understand the content of the resident’s emails and agreed that going forward a weekly conversation would take place.
  5. Agreed to contact his mental health support worker and to request for sound monitoring equipment from the EHS to be installed. It advised that it did not believe the sound monitoring equipment was installed as agreement could not be reached with Tenant B.
  6. It had agreed an emergency management move, following the incident in January 2021 and acknowledged that the resident suspected that Tenant B was involved. However, the police have advised that they are not taking any action in relation to the attack and it is had not been possible to identify the attacker.
2. Damp and mould in the current property.
  1. Having reviewed the pictures of the property before the resident moved in, there was no evidence that the property had damp or mould. It accepted that the repairs required to the bathroom and kitchen extractor fans and for the storage heaters may have given the impression that the property had damp or mould.
  2. It advised the resident to make contact if he had any further concerns about the condition of the property.
3. Repair to the front door in the current property.
  1. It had attended to repair the front door and its operative had found that the draught excluder that the resident had fitted was preventing the door from closing. It had arranged for an operative to reattend as the resident had advised that he wanted the draught excluder to remain in place.
4. Removal costs
  1. It explained that as a gesture of good will it agreed to pay towards his removal costs to the current property. It had no involvement with the removal firm. It confirmed that it would not be contributing to the extra costs incurred by the resident from the removal company or for the belongings that were damaged. It signposted the resident to the removal company to obtain redress for the damaged items.
The resident remained dissatisfied. He reported new complaints of ASB to his landlord and escalated his complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

The landlord is obliged under the Equality Act 2010 to provide appropriate support that meets the needs of the resident. The submission to this Service shows that the landlord had regard to the resident’s disability. It discussed with the resident his preferred method of communication and contacted his support team to see if additional support was necessary.
The resident’s complaint takes place when the government had introduced restrictions due to the Covid 19 pandemic. The guidance to social housing landlords about the actions that landlords could take changed over time. Despite the changes, landlords were expected to respond to concerns raised by its residents and formal complaints in line with the guidance and the restrictions that were in place at the time.

Reports of noise disturbance and anti-social behaviour (ASB) at the resident’s previous property.

There has been a large amount of communication between the resident and the landlord regarding his reports of ASB. The resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s approach to resolving his concerns have been noted and all the available evidence has been considered. This report will not be addressing each specific issue or incident, rather, it will reflect the key points and events which have been summarised.
It is clear from the resident’s submissions that he has been distressed by the reported ASB from his neighbours and he believes that this distress has been exacerbated by the lack of strong action by the landlord to tackle the problem.
The resident’s feelings are acknowledged. The Ombudsman’s role in such situations is to look at how the landlord responded to the resident’s report and his concerns and whether or not it acted reasonably and in accordance with its policies.
The resident reported that he was disturbed by the sounds of banging made by Tenant A in the early hours of the morning. From what can be seen, the landlord received sporadic reports about Tenant A’s behaviour: one in November 2019 and the other in March 2020. From the available information, there is no evidence that the landlord assessed whether the reports made by the resident reached the threshold to be considered ASB. This was a shortcoming as the type of noise complained about by the resident could have met the landlord’s definition of ASB and required action to be taken.
With regard to the ASB reported by the resident from Tenant B, in its complaint response, it acknowledged that it did not open an ASB case when it received the resident’s ASB report. Furthermore, it had dealt with the resident’s concerns alongside the ASB complaint raised by Tenant B.
The landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy when it informed the resident, he should keep a record of the noise incidents he was experienced. This was appropriate as the landlord could use the information to monitor the different types and level of noise experienced by the resident.
The ASB policy states that it will agree an action plan within three days. Whilst the landlord did not do this, there is evidence that on receiving the ASB reports, it communicated with the resident. This included a meeting with the resident to discuss and agree the way forward in managing the ASB reports that the resident had raised.
Towards the end of March 2020, the Government introduced restrictions following the Covid 19 pandemic. The landlord worked within the imposed restrictions and arranged a face-to-face meeting with the resident adhering to the social distancing measures.
The landlord acted appropriately in discussing with the resident, his preferred method of contact to manage the communication it received. This was reasonable as it involved the resident in the discussion and allowed him to put forward his views. Also, having a weekly conversation with the landlord, gave the resident time to think about the issues he wanted to discuss and to receive feedback at an agreed time.
Looking at the available information, there is evidence that the landlord undertook non legal remedies to resolve the ASB reported by the resident. It sought information from its partners to understand the resident’s support needs and discussed the use of mediation with the resident. However, while it referred the resident to its mediation provider, it accepted in its complaint response, it did not know why the mediation was not progressed. This was a short coming as it should have been monitoring participation with its mediation provider. Also, it was a mechanism to improve the fractured relationship between the resident and Tenant B.
The landlord took appropriate steps to witness the noise by contacting the EH Service to request the installation of noise monitoring equipment. The landlord in its complaint response, accepted that this did not occur as agreement could not be reached with Tenant B about the installation of the equipment.
The resident’s opinion was that Tenant B was deliberately generating the noise he was experiencing. Also, the resident believed that either Tenant B or her visitors was responsible for the attack he experienced in January 2021. The responsibility for investigating criminal behaviour is the responsibility of the police. The landlord received information from the police that it did not have evidence that Tenant B was involved in the attack on the resident. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the information it received from the police.
The resident wanted the landlord to take legal action against Tenant B. Before it could do this, the landlord would have to demonstrate that it had used the non-legal remedies that was available to him or that it had evidence that Tenant B was responsible for the attack. The landlord has demonstrated that it did not have evidence of Tenant B involvement and neither has the resident provided evidence that the resident or her visitors were responsibility for the attack.
The landlord agreed to the resident’s request for a transfer from his former tenancy. On the first occasion it agreed to a management transfer in June 2020 and the resident was removed from the management transfer list in August 2020 when the resident advised he wished to remain at his former tenancy. Following the attack to the resident in January 2021, the landlord again agreed to a management transfer as the resident had experienced a risk to his personal safety. On both occasions it acted in accordance with its ASB and lettings procedure and demonstrated that it considered the resident needs in assisting him to move to his present property.
The resident has maintained that if he knew that Tenant B was moving from her tenancy, he could have remained at his former tenancy. From what can be seen, the resident requested to move as he was not sure who was the perpetrator of the attack and no longer felt safe at the former tenancy. Also, the management transfer was agreed to alleviate the resident’s concerns about his safety.

Request for assistance towards removal costs

Following the resident securing a management transfer, he had to move to his new tenancy. The landlord’s compensation and payments policy is silent about whether the landlord is expected to contribute to the moving costs of its residents in the circumstances in which the resident changed address.
The landlord and resident discussed the removal costs in January 2021 before the resident left his former tenancy. The landlord agreed to pay towards some of the resident’s removal costs. After his move to his present address, the resident requested that the landlord increase its contribution towards his removal costs. The landlord addressed this in its complaint response. It explained that it had used its discretion and agreed to pay towards the removal costs from the invoice he had provided. Also, it had no involvement in the provision of the quote from the removal company and it had paid its contribution direct to his father as it had agreed.
The landlord acted reasonably when considering the resident’s vulnerabilities. Its gesture of good will was appropriate as it assisted with the resident to move to his current address. As the landlord was not involved in acquiring the removal company, the landlord acted reasonably when it decided that it was not responsible for the increased removal costs or damage to the resident’s belongings.

Request for repairs to your front door at your current property.

Under the terms of the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for ensuring that the front door of the resident’s current property is secure.
The resident reported to the landlord that he was experiencing difficulty with locking his front door. The landlord appropriately recorded the resident’s repair request as an emergency and an operative attended the same day to carry out the repair.
The operative who attended to repair the door, advised that the resident had attached a draught excluder to the front door which prevented the door from closing. As the resident did not want to remove the draught excluder, this meant that additional effort was required to get the door to close. Though the ease and adjusting of doors is a tenant obligation, it was reasonable for the landlord to agree in its final complaint response to carry out a further inspection of the door. The inspection will allow it to assess if it could take additional action to assist with the operation of the front door and it agreed an appointment to do this.

Reports of damp and mould in your current property.

Under the terms of the tenancy agreement and the Homes Fitness for Human Habitation Act 2018 requires landlords to ensure that its properties are habitable at the beginning of and throughout the tenancy. This includes ensuring that the property is free from damp.
The landlord’s repair procedure states that it will carry out non-emergency repairs within 10 working days. From what can be seen, the landlord only responded to the repair to the switch on the storage heater within 10 days. All the other repairs it undertook was longer than its published time limits: 20 days to attend to check the extractor fans and 90 days to replace the beading on the double-glazed windows.
In its final complaints response, the landlord informed the resident that it had not identified the presence of mould in the property. Looking at the available information, while the resident had complained that the property was draughty, he did not provide any evidence that the property had damp or mould.
The resident complained that the casing and covering to the extractor fans was not fitted correctly. The landlord took 124 days to complete the repair and 55 days to fix the legs to the storage heaters. These repairs exceeded the landlord’s published time frames and the resident experienced an unacceptable delay in getting the repairs completed.
It is recognised that during the period of this complaint the landlord’s services was impacted during the Covid 19 pandemic. In addition, that the operational changes it had to implement led to a backlog of repairs that it had to carry out. Nevertheless, the resident experienced an unreasonable delay in getting the repairs resolved.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states landlords should respond at its first stage within 10 working days and within 20 working days at its second stage. The landlord’s complaints procedure has shorter timescales than this, with complaints resolved within 13 working days: three working days at its first stage and 10 working days at its final stage.
Looking at the facts of the case, the landlord in its investigation of the resident complaints did not adhere to the timescales in the Complaint Handling Code or its own complaints procedure. The resident made complaints to the landlord from January 2020. The landlord did not respond until its letter to the resident on 6 February 2020. This letter does not contain many of the features of a complaint response as defined in the Complaint Handling Code. It does not inform the resident of the complaint stage or how it had calculated the compensation. In addition, the correspondence does not inform the resident how to progress the complaint to the next stage if the resident remained dissatisfied with its response.
Landlords should progress complaints to the next stage if the resident indicates that they are unhappy with the initial complaint response. The landlord did not do this, though it informed this Service on 26 February 2020 that it had escalated the resident’s complaint to the final stage of its complaint procedure. This Service contacted the landlord on 23 April 2020, 13 August 2020 and 21 June 2021 requesting that it progress the resident’s complaint. While there is evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss his concerns, the landlord did not provide its complaint response until August 2021. Therefore, the resident experienced an unacceptable delay of 17 months before it received the landlord’s position on his complaint.
The landlord in its final complaint response apologised that it had not been able to address the issues to the resident’s satisfaction. The landlord’s compensation and payments policy states that a discretionary payment can be made for poor complaint handling. The landlord missed an opportunity to consider whether an award of compensation was payable for its delayed complaint response. This was not reasonable.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the reports of noise disturbance and anti-social behaviour (ASB) at the previous property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for assistance towards removal costs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for request for repairs to the front door at the current property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the current property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has demonstrated that it acted in accordance with its ASB policy. It considered non legal remedies, consulted with its partners and agreed to a management transfer to resolve the ASB.
The landlord was not required to pay for the resident’s removal costs. It used its discretion when it made a contribution towards the resident’s removal costs.
The resident fitted a draught excluder to the front door which meant it did not close easily. As the resident wanted to retain the draught excluder, it was reasonable for the landlord to agree to carry out a further inspection of the door.
The landlord has inspected the property and has stated that the property does not have defects that will cause damp and mould. It has carried out repairs to the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen, heater and windows.
The landlord did not follow its complaints policy when it investigated the resident’s complaint. The resident experienced an unreasonable delay in receiving the landlord’s complaint response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord should pay the resident compensation of £500 broken down as:
1. £200 for its delay in carrying out the repairs to the resident’s current property.
2. £300 for its delay in providing its complaint response.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.