Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (202327039)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327039

Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

30 January 2025

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:
1. Suitability of the property.
2. Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour (ASB) between March 2023 and September 2023.
3. Landlord’s handling of concerns about staff conduct.
4. Landlord’s response to the reports about the condition of the property.
5. Landlord’s response to the concerns raised about the condition of the communal areas.
6. Landlord’s handling of the formal complaint that was submitted in September 2023
7. Landlord’s handling of the formal complaint that was submitted in February 2024.

Background

The resident held a secure tenancy with the landlord which is a local authority. Her tenancy commenced in August 2022. The property is a 2 bedroom flat in a low rise block and was offered following the resident’s homelessness application to the local authority.
The resident has mental health conditions and this is noted in the landlord’s records. The resident’s representative (the representative) has informed this Service that the resident is suspected to have Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). When the complaint was submitted to the landlord the resident lived in the property with her daughter.
Between September 2022 and September 2023 various repairs were reported in the communal areas of the resident’s block. This included repairs to the communal door, internal communal lighting, guttering and damp. During the same period the repairs were also raised for the resident’s flat. These included repairs to damp, the kitchen tap and a leaking radiator.
On 13 March 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that she had witnessed a man being knocked over. She stated that the man was associated with the residents of a flat in her block (flat x), who she reported were involved in drug dealing and drug use. She suspected the incident was drug-related and reported that she frequently smelt cannabis from flat x.
The resident continued to submit ASB reports about flat x to the landlord until August 2023. She also raised concerns about the communal door being left propped open, the uncleanliness of the communal areas, and queried how she could move from the property.
The landlord opened an ASB case, sent the resident log sheets and advised her to contact the housing options team for guidance on pursuing a move. The landlord also liaised with the police, completed block visits and discussed the ASB reports with the residents of flat x.
On 1 September 2023 the representative raised a formal complaint on the resident’s behalf. The complaint included concerns about the following:
1. The condition of the property when the resident moved in. The representative stated that there were various repairs including, damp, plumbing issues and a leaking boiler.
2. The condition of the communal areas including the security of the block and the time it was taking for the landlord to complete refurbishment works.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s ASB reports.
On 2 October 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 response to the complaint. It concluded that:
1. It had found no evidence of service failures in its response to the ASB reports.
2. The residents of the block were responsible for cleaning the block, as per an agreement they had signed, but were not doing so. To resolve the issue the landlord said that it planned to introduce a cleaning contractor at a cost to the residents.
3. The block was due to have major works carried out. This included the replacement of the communal doors, a new entry system and repairs to the communal areas that had been identified during the scoping work. The work was due to start in February 2024 subject to availability. The landlord said it would notify residents when a contractor had been chosen to complete the work.
4. Inspection reports of the resident’s flat confirmed that it met the lettable standard when it was offered to her.
5. There was no mention of damp in the void inspection report for the property. The landlord confirmed that it received repair requests from the resident after she moved in and had addressed some of these issues, except for repairs to the floor tiles and a windowsill. The landlord advised the resident to follow up with the repairs team if these works were not completed within the given timescale however, the specific timescale is unclear.
The representative escalated the complaint on the same day. He said that he disagreed with the landlord’s findings. He stated that he wanted the landlord to assign the ASB case to another officer, make the block secure, rehouse the resident and address the repairs.
On 2 and 3 October 2023 the resident reported that a neighbour in her block (flat y) had been selling stolen goods and playing loud music. She also reported that an occupant of a house that was next to her block was smoking cannabis and the smell was coming into her flat.
On 3 November 2023 the landlord provided its final response to the complaint. It upheld its stage 1 findings concerning its handling of the ASB reports and said that it had also given consideration to the resident’s mental health. Acknowledging the resident’s likely dissatisfaction with its findings, the landlord suggested referring the case for an independent ASB case review, previously known as a Community Trigger. It also reiterated its plans to carry out refurbishment work on the block and introduce a cleaning service.

Events after the complaints process

On 14 November 2023 the landlord met with the resident and agreed a number of actions concerning the way it was going to manage the ASB case. Following the meeting the resident and representative continued to report ASB from flat x and flat y.
On 2 February 2024 an ASB case review was conducted. It concluded that there had been effective collaboration between the landlord and partner agencies.
On 28 February 2024 the representative complained about the conduct of the officer that was managing the ASB case. He raised several issues with the officer’s conduct and stated that:
1. The officer’s communication was unprofessional and caused distress to the resident. He stated that the resident’s request for the ASB case to be passed to another officer and her request for regular updates was ignored by the landlord.
2. The officer had failed in her role and used the resident’s reluctance for noise monitoring equipment against the resident.
3. The officer refused to investigate the CCTV that he reported flat y had installed.
4. The officer had not explored formal or informal interventions.
5. The officer rescinded an earlier agreement allowing the resident to send email logs instead of paper logs.
6. The ASB team seemed more focused on relocating the resident than addressing the neighbours’ behaviour.
7. He wanted disciplinary action to be taken against the officer and the ASB case assigned to another officer.
The landlord confirmed that it would not raise a new complaint. However, it agreed to complete a review of the actions it had taken on the ASB case following the ASB case review. It also decided to assign a different officer to the ASB case.
On 19 April 2024 the landlord provided the outcome of its review, which examined its handling of the ASB case from the date of the ASB case review (2 February 2024) until the case was reallocated to another officer on 1 March 2024. The landlord did not find any service failure in its management of the ASB case, but acknowledged that there had been a breakdown in trust between the representative and the officer. The landlord also recognised the representative’s request for a meeting and agreed to this. It asked the representative to propose dates for the meeting.
The representative has raised several points of dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to the respective complaints that he submitted in September 2023 and February 2024. The points raised include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. He is unhappy with the landlord’s refusal to consider the February 2024 complaint in its complaints procedure.
2. He believes that the ASB case should have been allocated to another officer sooner.
3. He stated that the landlord did not consider safeguarding or risk assessments.
4. He believes that the landlord has taken a biased view on the way the officer dealt with the ASB case. He insisted that the officer’s communication was poor and that there was a lack of meaningful updates from her.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

Paragraph 42j of the Scheme explains that we may not consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body.
After carefully considering all the evidence, the resident’s complaint concerning the suitability of the property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The property was offered to the resident following her homelessness application. Complaints related to allocations arising from homelessness applications are within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Therefore in accordance with paragraph 42j the complaint about the suitability of the property is outside of our jurisdiction because it falls within the jurisdiction of the LGSCO.

Scope of investigation

The landlord received reports of ASB from the resident and the representative between March 2023 and April 2024. Our assessment of the landlord’s handling of these reports during the 13-month period is divided into 2 parts to reflect the landlord’s consideration of the matter under 2 separate processes.
The landlord confirmed that it would not consider the February 2024 complaint. Therefore we consider that the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. As part of our assessment of the landlord’s response to the February 2024 complaint, we will review its handling of the complaint regarding the staff member’s conduct and its handling of ASB reports that were made between October 2023 and April 2024.
Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the representative has said that the situation has had a detrimental impact on his and the resident’s health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord. When assessing the detriment caused by any failings identified in this investigation, this Service has focused on the impact to the resident, as she holds the tenancy with the landlord. Consequently, this Service cannot consider the impact on the representative, as he brought the complaint to us on behalf of the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB between March 2023 and September 2023.

It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. 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 landlord’s ASB policy states that it will respond quickly and efficiently to all reports of ASB, manage expectations, and agree an action plan. The action plan will include what it will do and what it requires from the person reporting ASB. The landlord will categorise reported ASB into 3 different categories. The categories range from minor to very serious. Its response time to reports depends on the category of the report.
The evidence demonstrates that following the initial report on 13 March 2023 the landlord responded within the service standard of 24 hours. When it spoke with the resident it provided her with advice relevant to the incident that she said she had witnessed. However it did not explain what, if any, action it could take regarding the allegation she made about the residents of flat x.
The landlord’s policy notes that nuisances such as drug smells or substance misuse fall within its category for serious ASB. In the case of serious ASB it is required to agree an action plan within 24 hours of the report and then take action within 5 working days. The landlord did not act on the report about flat x in line with this timescale. It did not agree an action plan with the resident or take any action to investigate her concern until 28 April 2023.
On 28 April 2023 it confirmed an action plan with the resident. On 4 May 2023 it provided the resident with written confirmation of the action plan, outlining what was expected from her along with log sheets. Following this, in May 2023 the landlord made enquiries with the police regarding reports it had received from the resident about the local area and the residents of flat x. After receiving a response from the police, the landlord arranged a joint visit to discuss the allegations with the residents of flat x and gather evidence. The landlord also wrote and visited the residents of flat x regarding the allegations made about their association with drugs. Additionally, there is evidence that the landlord inspected the block for signs of drug use on 4 occasions between June and August 2023.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will consult with those reporting ASB before taking action and will provide regular updates on the progress of their case at least every 2 weeks. While there was a delay in the landlord’s response to the report regarding flat x, from 28 April 2023 onwards there is evidence of the landlord maintaining regular contact with the resident, both by phone and email. The landlord notified the resident of its interactions with the police and when it arranged for the initial visit to flat x to take place on 22 June 2023, it informed the resident of its intention to do so on 8 June 2023. Although the visit was attempted, it could not get access into the flat but inspected the block for evidence of the ASB issues raised. The landlord updated the resident and continued to do so after attending the block on 3 additional occasions. During these visits, the landlord shared its findings from its block inspections with the resident, relayed feedback from the police, and outlined what was required from the resident to support the reports she had made.
By September 2023, after attending the block, discussing the allegations with the residents of flat x, observing the flat, and seeking evidence from the police, the landlord found no evidence to support the reported ASB. It explained to the resident why its ability to take action against the accused residents was limited and continued to encourage her to complete the log sheets it had provided. The landlord’s request for evidence to support the allegations was consistent with its policy, which requires it to gather evidence of alleged ASB and take appropriate action based on any evidence received. After taking the above actions and finding no supporting evidence for the issues reported by the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to encourage the resident to complete the log sheets and report any ASB she observed in the local area to the police, as this would assist in the landlord’s investigations if the residents of flat x were involved.
The landlord explained its obligations as a landlord, what it could do in relation to the ASB, and also the evidence that it would require in order to take action against the accused neighbours. The landlord also made clear to the resident that she could seek the assistance of housing options, which was reasonable as she had already indicated her wish to be moved from the property. The landlord’s actions to manage the resident’s expectations was in line with the expectations set out in its policy.
In its response to the complaint the landlord concluded that its customer service in relation to the ASB was in line with its expectations. There is evidence of it being in regular communication with the resident between March and September 2023. However we have identified that there was a delay in it acting on the resident’s initial report about the neighbours’ drug use.
In its response to the complaint the landlord stated that it had supported the resident with her mental health. There is evidence that on 7 September 2023 the landlord offered the resident a referral to its mental health support officer after she expressed concerns that the ASB she reported from flat x was affecting her mental health. Prior to this referral, the resident had mentioned to the landlord on 30 June and 21 August 2023, that living in the property was impacting her mental health. At those times, the landlord advised her to speak with her GP. Throughout its communication with the resident, from March 2023 onwards, the landlord also referred her to housing options regarding her desire to move. While advising the resident to consult her GP was reasonable, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to consider referring her to the mental health officer sooner, especially as it had the resources available and was aware that she had a mental health condition.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will on receipt of a report assess the risk of harm to the reporting person and any vulnerability to identify how it would deal with the complaint. There is no evidence of it considering the risk of harm to the resident on receipt of her initial report of ASB in March 2023, or within a reasonable time following this after she continued to report concerns. Given its awareness of the resident’s mental health condition it is a failure by the landlord that it did not do so.
A finding of maladministration has been made regarding the landlord’s overall handling of the ASB case. This is due to the landlord failing to acknowledge the delay in acting on the report about flat x when it was made in March 2023. Additionally the landlord did not recognise the need to assess the resident’s vulnerability or consider how the issues she reported may have impacted her mental health and offer her support at an earlier opportunity.
There is evidence that the landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy regarding communication with the resident from April 28, 2023, onwards. Its efforts to gather evidence, including partnership working with the police, discussing the allegations, and inspecting the block, were also in line with the expectations outlined in the ASB policy. The delay in acting on the initial report did not significantly impact the overall outcome of the case, as there is no evidence that the issues escalated between March and April 2023 before the landlord took steps to investigate. However, the delay in referring the resident for mental health support may have had a more negative effect, as the resident expressed throughout the case that, while she understood the landlord’s actions were limited without evidence, she was distressed about living in the area and wanted to move.
In cases where we have found maladministration we would consider compensation awards from £100 appropriate. In this case therefore we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 in recognition of the potential impact of the failures that we have identified in its handling of the ASB case, The failings are the delay in acting on the initial report and the time it took to refer the resident to a mental health support officer.

The landlord’s handling of concerns about staff conduct.

The complaint submitted by the representative on 28 February 2024 outlined several concerns about the conduct of the officer who was managing the ASB case. We would expect the landlord to investigate the communication between the officer, the resident and her representative, to satisfy itself whether it found any evidence of the concerns raised about the officer’s conduct.
The landlord sought evidence from the representative to support the complaint. He explained that he did not have enough spare time to send hundreds of emails and asked if the landlord if it could gather the evidence internally. The landlord’s request for evidence from the representative was reasonable in the circumstances. Landlords are expected to seek and review evidence to draw conclusions concerning issues raised in complaints. Given the nature of the allegations made about the conduct of the staff member it was fair for the landlord to have full transparency and give the representative the opportunity to provide supporting evidence of the complaint that he submitted.
There is evidence that the landlord, in the absence of any evidence from the representative, took steps to rely on the information it had within its records to complete the review. Its review did not find any issue with the officer’s conduct or the handling of the case overall.
The evidence that the landlord has provided in the form of its ASB logs demonstrate that the actions taken in response to the ASB reports was reasonable and in accordance with its policy. The ASB logs that the landlord provided also show that it took the reports made seriously, was proactive in investigating the incidents, and made attempts to gather supporting evidence while also encouraging the resident to do so where she could. It also took proportionate action relevant to the information it received concerning the ASB.
However, we have found that the landlord did not take appropriate steps to manage the resident’s expectations regarding communication with the officer handling the case. During a meeting with the resident on 14 November 2023 the landlord agreed that a decision needed to be made about the frequency of updates that the resident could expect from the officer. However, there is no evidence that any agreement was made following the meeting.
As a result the representative’s expectations did not align with the landlord’s ability to deliver. For example, the representative expected weekly updates and noted that this was what the landlord agreed when it met with the resident. However, there is no evidence of such agreement being made during or after the meeting in November 2023. Had the landlord made a clear decision on the frequency of contact the resident could expect from the officer and communicated it, as agreed during the November 2023 meeting, both parties would have had a mutual understanding of the communication expectations.
On 28 December 2023 the officer who was managing the case informed the resident that she had been providing updates via email as she wanted to ensure that the resident had clear and concise information. The officer’s decision to do so was reasonable as previously the representative had raised concerns that the officer had given different information via calls and in emails.
On 11 January 2024 the officer provided the resident with an update on the actions taken in relation to the ASB case. The officer stated in the email that no further updates would be provided until the completion of the ASB case review, which was scheduled for February 2024. When the representative questioned this the landlord did not provide an explanation, which was unreasonable. The landlord was aware that the resident was anxious and fearful of the unknown, and reassurance was needed. The decision to withhold updates until the review, which was still 3 weeks away, should have been accompanied by a clear explanation. If the landlord had decided not to provide an update until after the review, it should have explained why and informed the resident or the representative when the resident could expect to hear from the landlord with an update after the case review.
The representative raised concerns that call back requests he had made were not returned. There is evidence that a call back request submitted to the landlord on 11 January 2024 was not returned. When the representative raised the issue of the missed call back the landlord did not offer an explanation or an apology. The landlord’s records show it was aware that the representative was expecting a call back and that it was awaiting an update at the time. The failure to explain why the call was not returned or to apologise for this oversight was unreasonable. While the landlord had previously communicated on 28 December 2023 that updates would be provided via email, the lack of a clear communication plan or acknowledgment of the missed call was unreasonable.
The representative has also consistently stated that the resident asked for a new officer to manage the ASB case. When the landlord met with the resident on 14 November 2023 it confirmed that it was satisfied with the actions taken by the officer who was dealing with the case, although it agreed to review whether the officer would remain on the ASB case. There is no evidence that this review was conducted or that a decision was communicated to the resident within a reasonable time after the meeting in November 2023.
Following the complaint that was submitted on 28 February 2024 the landlord decided to assign the ASB case to a different officer. The decision itself was reasonable, given the breakdown in the relationship. However, the time it took the landlord to consider this request was unreasonable, as it had agreed to review whether the officer should remain on the case approximately 3 months before, when it met with the resident. While the landlord did not find any fault in the officer’s handling of the ASB reports, it was evident before the complaint in February 2024, that the relationship had broken down and continued to deteriorate, resulting in the complaint that was submitted in February 2024. The landlord could have reviewed whether it was appropriate for the officer to continue communication, particularly with the representative, at an earlier stage. Had it done so it could have taken a more resolution-focused approach, potentially avoiding further undermining of the relationship between the resident, representative, and the officer.
The representative indicated in the complaint that the officer who was managing the case had not considered making reasonable adjustments. He noted in his February 2024 complaint that the staff member had agreed that the resident could provide log sheets via email and later on was no longer happy with this method. To make a reasonable adjustment means to make a physical change to premises or change work practices to avoid or correct the disadvantage to a person with a disability. On 23 November 2023 the landlord, after being made aware that the resident had difficulty completing the paper form log sheets, confirmed to the resident that she could provide the details as required in the log sheets via email. The landlord reiterated this on several occasions following this. There is no evidence that the landlord retracted its agreement that the resident could submit the details in email form. Based on the evidence provided, we are satisfied that the landlord gave consideration to providing reasonable adjustments.
We note that the decision to offer the resident a managed move was made following an incident that occurred on 3 April 2024. The landlord took a collaborative approach, consulted with the police, and applied its discretion to facilitate the move. The representative questioned whether the move could have occurred sooner. The landlord’s ASB policy states that complainants or perpetrators will not be moved as a means of resolving ASB, except in exceptional circumstances, and only after consultation with partner agencies and its internal housing options team.
The landlord’s decision to apply discretion and allow the resident to move was fair, given the circumstances. While the ASB policy typically discourages moving individuals as a means of resolving disputes, the landlord recognised the exceptional nature of the situation. The tension between the parties had escalated to a point where a move was seen as a proactive measure to prevent further conflict and maintain the well-being of all residents involved.
Based on the evidence we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the concerns raised about staff conduct. While the landlord took reasonable action regarding the ASB reports, it failed to effectively manage the resident’s expectations, particularly around communication and her request for a change in the officer who was managing the case.
In light of this finding we have ordered the landlord to compensate the resident £100. This award aligns with our remedies guidance and specifically acknowledges the landlord’s failure to manage communications effectively. We have also ordered that the landlord provide the resident with a written apology for failing to manage her expectations regarding communication frequency and her request for a new staff member after the November 2023 meeting.

The landlord’s response to the reports about the condition of the property.

The landlord provides an information leaflet to its residents that explains the conditions that they can expect in their new homes. The information within the leaflet explains that it will have cleaned the property throughout and, if it finds any areas of damp, it will investigate and do any repairs that are required.
The landlord completed a void inspection of the property on 15 August 2022. The report confirmed that the property was suitable to let although indicated that there were minor repairs that were required to areas in the property. No damp, mould or plastering work was found on inspection and a recommendation was made that the kitchen was considered for renewal once it was let.
On the basis of the void inspection report it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude in its response to the complaint that the property met the landlord’s lettable standard.
The representative also said in the complaint that there were several repair issues in the property that were outstanding at the time. The issues raised included damp and mould, a rusted radiator and the boiler.
The landlord said in its response to the complaint that the repairs were raised after the resident moved into the property and the repair records support this. As the representative noted that the repairs were outstanding in the complaint the landlord would be expected to investigate what actions it had taken or needed to take to resolve them.
The landlord acknowledged that ‘some’ of the repairs had been carried out and it stated that repairs for the replacement of floor tiles and the replacement of a windowsill were outstanding. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out any investigation into what happened with the repairs mentioned. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided details about the repairs it had addressed, whether it had addressed them in line with its service standard timeframes, and when the resident could expect the outstanding repairs to be completed.
At stage 2 the representative reiterated that there was still damp and mould in the property and that no one had booked a repair. He also raised that the radiator and the walls were not repaired. The landlord did not respond to this at stage 2.
The landlord has an obligation to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It also has the responsibility for the repair to the heating system in the property. The landlord failed to provide a comprehensive response to the issues raised concerning the outstanding repairs in the complaint. It acknowledged the existence of the outstanding repairs. However it did not demonstrate a resolution focused approach by giving the resident any indication as to what action it was going to take, and when, to complete the repairs.
Given the mention of outstanding damp and mould it is of particular concern that the landlord did not explain how it would address this in its response to the complaint. Its damp and mould policy explains that on receipt of reports it will complete an urgent inspection and thereafter complete remedial works.
In this case the representative noted in both stages 1 and 2 that there was outstanding damp and mould in the property. However there is no evidence of the landlord taking any action to address this, or the other noted outstanding repairs, during the course of the complaint.
A finding of maladministration has been found in the landlord’s response to the complaint concerning the condition of the property. There is evidence to support the landlord’s finding that the property met its lettable standard when it was let. However the finding has been found because the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it acted in line with its obligations to address the outstanding repairs in the property. It did not offer any resolution to the outstanding repairs in its response to the complaint and placed the onus on the resident to contact its repairs team, which was unreasonable.
We are aware that the resident no longer lives in the property and so no order has been made in relation to the landlord taking action in relation to the repairs. In line with our remedies guidance we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £150 in recognition of the impact of its failure to offer a resolution to the outstanding repairs raised in the complaint.

The landlord’s response to the concerns raised about the condition of the communal areas.

The resident’s complaint concerning the communal areas noted that the area was unclean and in need of repairs. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord has an obligation to carry out repairs within communal areas. It is also responsible for keeping the communal areas clean and tidy. It expects residents to also keep communal areas clean and tidy. In the case of the resident’s block the residents agreed to maintain and clean the communal areas.
The landlord gathered the relevant information about the major works to the communal areas and in its response it provided the resident with an estimated timeframe for when works would likely begin. This was an appropriate step to manage the resident’s expectations regarding the commencement of the works. The landlord was aware that the major works included the introduction of a new door entry system and improved security. The landlord acknowledged this would benefit the block, especially in relation to the ASB concerns discussed with the resident. In the meantime, the landlord took action to address the security concerns raised. Specifically, after receiving a report that the door was being left propped open, the landlord wrote to all residents in the block on August 1, 2023, asking them to refrain from doing so. As there was no evidence identifying who was leaving the door open, it was reasonable for the landlord to address all residents, particularly given its awareness of ASB issues in the area.
Regarding the cleanliness of the block, there is evidence that the landlord conducted inspections between July 2023 and September 2023 to assess whether residents were adhering to the agreement to clean the communal areas. On finding that the communal area was not being cleaned by the residents as expected, the landlord who has overall responsibility for the communal spaces, proposed the introduction of its own cleaning contractor. This proposal to introduce a cleaning service was a reasonable resolution in the circumstances, as the residents were not keeping to the agreement to clean the area.
In its response to the complaint, the landlord confirmed its intention to introduce a cleaning service. It did not provide a timeframe for when the resident could expect the service to be implemented. Providing a timeframe, or some indication of the steps required to introduce the service, would have been beneficial in managing the resident’s expectations about when it could realistically be put in place. For the introduction of a new service the landlord would typically be required to consult with residents beforehand.
Overall no maladministration has been found by the landlord in its response to the concerns about the communal areas. The landlord took interim measures to address the concerns raised about the security of the block while the refurbishment work was pending. In addition to this the landlord acknowledged that the communal area was not being cleaned as expected and agreed to introduce a service to provide cleaning to the areas of the block.

The landlord’s handling of the formal complaint submitted in September 2023.

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 it will respond within 10 working days, starting from the next working day after the complaint is raised. At stage 2 the response is expected within 20 working days.
The landlord’s response at stage 1 was delayed, but this was not due to a service failure. The complaint was received from the representative, but at that time, the landlord had no record of authorisation from the resident. After discussions with the resident on 5 September 2023, the landlord received confirmation from her on 12 September 2023 that she wished to pursue the complaint. Once this confirmation was received, the landlord was expected to respond by 27 September 2023. However, in its acknowledgment of the complaint, the landlord communicated to the representative that it would respond by 29 September 2023, which was appropriate.
The stage 1 response was delayed by 1 working day beyond the agreed deadline. The landlord apologised for the delay, explaining that it was due to an IT error. Given the minor nature of the delay, the landlord’s apology is considered reasonable redress.
The stage 2 complaint response was issued 5 working days beyond the target timeframe. This delay was due to efforts between 12 and 17 October 2023 to arrange a suitable time for the landlord and representative to discuss the complaint. The landlord’s decision to prioritise a discussion before responding caused the delay, but this did not negatively impact the resident, and the delay is not considered a service failure.

The landlord’s handling of the formal complaint submitted in February 2023.

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out examples of matters that do not fall within the scope of its complaints policy. This includes complaints that have already been through its complaints process or where there is an appeal against a decision where there is an appeals process.
The landlord decided not to accept the complaint, stating that it had previously investigated the handling of the ASB case and that the officer’s actions were reviewed in the ASB case review that was completed in February 2024.
Our complaint handling code (the Code) states that a landlord must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure and must have clear and valid reasons for taking that course of action. In this case the landlord clarified its reasons. However in the Ombudsman’s opinion we do not consider it a reasonable decision to refuse the complaint concerning the staff member’s conduct on the basis of the reasons that it provided.
The representative confirmed that the concerns about the staff member’s conduct occurred after the resident’s previous complaint finalised the complaints process. Therefore the landlord would not have had the opportunity to address these issues in its previous complaint investigation.
Furthermore the complaint about the staff member’s conduct referred to the staff member’s professionalism, communication and behaviour, which is distinct from the substantive handling of the ASB case. The landlord is expected to take responsibility for all aspects of service delivery, including staff conduct.
The external ASB case review likely focused on procedural matters or case outcomes, while the internal complaints process is designed to assess broader concerns, such as conduct or customer service. Both procedures can run independently.
We recognise however that the landlord’s review that it completed on 19 April 2024 considered the officer’s actions taken on the ASB case. This demonstrated a willingness on its part to re-examine its handling of the case and provide an opportunity to identify potential learning.
Nevertheless a service failure has been found in the landlord’s handling of the complaint that was submitted in February 2024. Its decision not to consider the complaint for the reasons it provided was unreasonable.
In recognition of this finding we have ordered that the landlord write to the resident with an apology in recognition of the findings we have made in its complaint handling. We have also ordered that the landlord pay the resident £50 in recognition of the potential distress and inconvenience incurred as a result of its refusal to allow the resident the opportunity to have her complaint investigated by way of its complaints process.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 47j of the Scheme the complaint about the suitability of the property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB between March 2023 and September 2023.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the concerns about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the reports about the condition of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the concerns raised about the condition of the communal areas.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint that was submitted in September 2023.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint that was submitted in February 2024.

Orders and recommendations

It is ordered that within 4 weeks of this report the landlord pays the resident £400 compensation. This consists of:
1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience the resident may have incurred as a result of the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports between March 2023 and September 2023.
2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience the resident may have incurred as a result of the landlord’s handling of the concerns about staff conduct.
3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience the resident may have incurred as a result of the landlord’s response to the condition of the property.
4. £50 for the distress and inconvenience the resident may have incurred as a result of the landlord’s handling of the complaint that was submitted on 28 February 2024.
The payment should be made directly to the resident and should not be used to offset any arrears.
Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is to send a letter of apology to the resident, specifically acknowledging:
1. Its failure to manage her expectations regarding communication frequency and her request for a new staff member following the November 2023 meeting.
2. The complaint handling service failure that we have identified in its handling of the complaint that was submitted on 28 February 2024.
Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord should provide us with confirmation that it has complied with the above orders.