Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Thrive Homes Limited (202127733)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127733

Thrive Homes Limited

6 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
    1. Antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Leaks from the flat above.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder in a block of flats where the landlord is the freeholder. She has lived in the ground floor flat since 2014.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 16 January 2021 and reported loud drilling and sanding noise from the neighbour above. The landlord visited the neighbour around 20 January 2021. On 27 January 2021 it advised the resident the neighbour’s son had been living in the property while she was shielding with her mum. The neighbour said she had been doing some DIY, but the landlord told the resident it would “keep an eye on the flat.”
  3. On 1 October 2021 the resident reported a man at her window with what she thought was a screwdriver. She said she had received verbal abuse from the neighbour and had reported an attempted break in at her home to the police. The landlord installed noise monitoring equipment (NME) in the resident’s flat from 25 November 2021 to 6 December 2021; however, the resident said both she and the neighbour had been away, so it had not been used.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 16 January 2022 and reported a leak from the flat above. The landlord attended out of hours to isolate and repair the leak that was coming from the pipework under the bath.
  5. The resident asked Citizens Advice (CA) for support. On 8 February and 2 March 2022 CA contacted the landlord regarding the leak and ASB issues. It said there was significant noise from the flat above, constant comings and goings, and it was affecting the resident’s sleep, mental wellbeing, and her capacity to work from home and meet targets. There is no evidence the landlord responded to CA.
  6. The resident contacted us about the ASB and leak on 18 March 2022. We asked the landlord to raise a complaint and respond by 1 April 2022. The resident said:
    1. she had been reporting ASB including parties, noise, drug taking, swearing, shouting, and dogs barking for over 3 years, but the landlord had not taken it seriously
    2. there had been a recurring leak from the flat above and she wanted the landlord to provide reassurance that it had been dealt with and would not happen again
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 20 April 2022. In summary the landlord said:
    1. the resident had previously reported a male living in the flat above, but from January 2021, she had reported 3 females and 2 dogs as living in the flat
    2. from September to December 2021 the resident had been in contact with the case handler who had worked with the local authority, and while it installed NME, the resident felt it was not ideal as she was away at the time
    3. there had been times where there had been lengthy delays in contacting the resident, and times when it had not been clear about the action taken in relation to the ASB
    4. it would offer £50 compensation in recognition of the communication failures and advised the outcome of the investigation would be shared with the officers involved to better understand what steps could have been taken before the matter escalated to a complaint
    5. it hoped the actions agreed and taken provided reassurance that it was trying to investigate and resolve the issues reported. These included:
      1. opening a new ASB case which would be monitored
      2. reviewing the details of the occupants in the flat above (the landlord confirmed 2 adults were living in the property and this was acceptable)
      3. reviewing if the neighbour had been given permission to keep dogs and asking them to keep them on leads in communal areas
      4. sending the neighbour a warning letter following the reports of ASB which was followed up by a call and a home visit
      5. contacting the police to share the resident’s information regarding the suspected drug dealing
      6. contacting the local authority for copies of the noise recordings provided by the resident
    6. the resident reported a leak from the neighbour above on 16 January 2022, it attended out of hours and repaired a leak to the pipework under the bath
    7. it inspected the resident’s flat on 27 January 2022 and while damage was found, it confirmed as a leaseholder, she was responsible for the repairs which should be completed via her insurance
    8. it could not guarantee future repairs would not be required, but the water penetration had stopped, no further action was needed, and it was confident the leak had been repaired
    9. the resident moved out of the property while the insurance company completed repairs. Therefore, she had not reported much ASB
    10. if it had not heard from the resident within 14 days of the response, the case would be closed on the understanding she accepted the findings
  8. The resident asked to escalate the complaint regarding the leak on 22 May 2023. She said:
    1. she was unhappy with how the landlord responded to and handled reports of a leak at her property
    2. the leak kept recurring. She was still having work done in her property from the previous leak and was upset it had happened again
    3. she wanted the landlord to confirm what it was doing to ensure it would not happen again
  9. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response regarding the leak on 13 June 2023. In summary the landlord said:
    1. when the initial leak was reported (January 2022), it had checked the property above and the communal cold water storage tank and the roof area
    2. it found a leak on the rook and passed this to a specialist roofing contractor
    3. it received a report from the neighbour about an uncontainable leaking toilet on 24 February 2023, it attended the flat, overhauled the toilet and stopped the leak therefore it had met its repair responsibilities by attending and resolving within its target times
    4. the resident reported a leak from the flat above on 21 May 2023. It attended the neighbour’s property but could not gain access, therefore it returned on 25 May 2023, found leaks from the shower taps and loose joints which were repaired on the same visit
    5. it had acted fairly and reasonably in the circumstances and attended and rectified the issue found at the time therefore it did not recommend any further action
  10. The resident asked to escalate her complaint regarding the ASB on 19 July 2023. She said:
    1. she was not happy with the way the landlord had managed the ASB as it was not resolved
    2. the landlord had not linked the ASB to the leak in January 2022 which she believed was caused deliberately by the neighbour above
  11. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 6 October 2023. In summary the landlord said:
    1. it had considered the complaint at stage 2 as it had been issued a stage 1 response previously, and it was unfair for the resident to go through the full complaint process again
    2. insufficient record keeping meant it could not be confident the appropriate actions were taken throughout the ASB case or that clear action plans were agreed
    3. there were times where no contact had been made for weeks as it had not received any incoming reports, and this resulted in case reviews being completed without contact with the resident
    4. it had failed to follow its ASB Policy, offered £700 compensation in recognition of this, and confirmed the failures had been addressed through training and the introduction of additional quality assurance checks
    5. in relation to the current ASB it confirmed it had:
      1. opened a new case that it would monitor, but if no further evidence was available the case will be closed
      2. made unannounced visits to the neighbour in August and September 2023 but had not witnessed any ASB, noise, or fly tipping
      3. issued a letter to all residents in the block regarding the overgrown garden
      4. contacted the police on 12 September 2023 to confirm if any reports of crime had been made, to which it confirmed a report had been made from a neighbour of possible drug use
      5. contacted all residents to see if there was any ASB, and received one response of no issues, and one report of an occasional smell of cannabis
    6. it had investigated how it handled the leak from a repairs  perspective in a previous stage 2 response so would not reinvestigate this issue, but it had looked how it had managed the issue from an ASB perspective. It said:
      1. it had looked at its records, spoke to an operative who had attended on more than one occasion, and confirmed there was no evidence the leaks were caused deliberately
      2. it had arranged a leak detection survey of the flat above and the pipework and plumbing, and it would share a copy with the resident when it was available
      3. it had completed a stock condition survey of the block on 31 August 2022, and no concerns were highlighted
      4. it completed a Health and Safety inspection of the block on 2 October 2023, and this did not raise any issues
  12. The resident referred her complaint to us on 8 October 2024. She said she was not happy with the following:
    1. the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB
    2. the landlord’s handling of the leaks from the flat above
  13. As a resolution the resident asked for the landlord:
    1. to evict the neighbours in the flat above
    2. to investigate and resolve the cause of the intermittent leak from above
    3. to pay additional compensation for the time, stress and inconvenience caused

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referred to the impact the situation has had on her health. We can consider the impact the situation has had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, but we cannot determine liability for damage to health. This is a matter better suited to an insurance claim or court. Any compensation offer will be assessed in line with our remedies guidance. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, she should seek legal advice.
  2. The resident has said the ASB has been ongoing since at least 2018. This is not disputed however there is no evidence the resident raised a formal complaint prior to 21 March 2022. It is therefore reasonable to focus on events from January 2021 to 6 October 2023, the date of the landlord’s final complaint response. As discussed with the resident, if any events happened after this date that she is not happy with, these should be raised as a new complaint with the landlord.
  3. As part of the resolution to the complaint, the resident has asked for the neighbours above her to be evicted. This is not something we can order the landlord to do as it is subject to a legal process.

Reports of ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB Policy states it will:
    1. log all reports of ASB and respond to reports within 5-working days to agree an action plan
    2. take proportionate action to what is reported when considering what its next steps will be
    3. ensure it considers a range of interventions (e.g. warning letters) to deter or prevent ASB, and where appropriate take legal action
    4. be clear what it can or cannot do and agree an action plan with the reporter, including timeframes
    5. communicate with reporters at reasonable levels of frequency and provide up to date information on the progress of the case
    6. complete a risk assessment and refer to an appropriate third-party support service, or other agency where necessary
  2. The landlord’s Compensation Statement states:
    1. when it gets things wrong, it will consider how this has impacted the resident, including distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved
    2. any offers of compensation will be made in line with our remedies guidance
    3. £50 to £250 may be offered for not meeting service standards but where there has been no significant impact on the resident
    4. £250 to £700 may be offered for failing to act in line with policy or procedure
  3. It is not our role to establish whether someone has committed ASB, but to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. We will determine whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, considering its own policies and procedures.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 16 January 2021 and reported heavy drilling and sanding noise from the flat above. She said she worked from home and the noise affected her. The landlord responded on 19 January 2021 and said it would visit the neighbour to confirm what the noise was. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy. The landlord updated the resident on 27 January 2021 and confirmed the contact it had with the neighbour. It informed the resident it would monitor the flat and agreed she should keep it updated within an unusual activity. This was reasonable. The landlord responded to the reports made, but it did not provide evidence that it completed a risk assessment with the resident. This was a missed opportunity to identify any vulnerability or additional support needs. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with policy.
  5. According to the landlord’s records, there was no further contact from the resident until 14 September 2021. She asked the landlord to return her call but there is no evidence it did. Further, due to a lack of contact and evidence, it is not known if the call related to further ASB which needed a response from the landlord. This was a communication failure.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 October 2021 when she said there had been a man at her living room window, and she had found what looked to be a screwdriver at the window. She said there was a broken light in the communal area which she alleged led to the attempted break in at her property and verbal abuse from the neighbour. While she confirmed she had reported it to the police, there is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with policy.
  7. On 12 November 2021 the resident reported further ASB which she said included drinking, loud noise, and a male causing trouble. Although the landlord installed NME in the resident’s flat on 25 November 2021, she said she had been away for 3 days and on the 2 occasions where there had been noise, she had not recorded it. The NME was collected on 6 December 2021 unused. Due to the lack of evidence regarding the reported ASB, it would have been helpful for the landlord to discuss alternative dates to install the NME again. There is no evidence it did this. This was unreasonable as there was no discussion as to how it could collate evidence.
  8. The resident engaged with CA. Despite emails to the landlord on 8 February and 2 March 2022, regarding the ASB and the effect on the resident, there is no evidence the landlord responded to CA. This was unreasonable and a communication failure by the landlord.
  9. The resident raised a complaint on 21 March 2022. On 1 April 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the issues raised. The resident confirmed she was staying in a hotel while repairs were being completed in her flat following the leak in January 2022. She reported 3 females living in the property and 2 dogs that she said barked constantly. She said the ASB consisted of a constant stream of visitors, screaming, shouting, swearing, drugs, drinking. She said she had tried to talk to the neighbours, but this resulted in verbal abuse. She said she had provided noise recordings via the app, her own recordings and diary sheets but had not received any feedback. Despite the resident referring to the stress it was causing, the landlord’s evidence does not confirm it completed a risk assessment or action plan with the resident or that it provided any feedback regarding the evidence provided by the resident. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with policy.
  10. On 8 April 2022 the landlord told the resident it had sent a warning letter to the neighbour about the reported ASB and spoke to the police about the suspected drug activity. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy. The resident raised an issue regarding the communal door being on the latch all night which meant there was no security, however she confirmed she was not at the flat much so there was not a lot to report. The resident asked for a copy of the recordings she had taken from September to December 2021. The landlord advised it would follow up the issue regarding the communal doors and would ask the local authority for the recordings. The evidence confirms the landlord asked for the recordings and any update on the action taken because of them on 8 April and 29 April 2022. There is no evidence the resident received a copy or any update from the landlord. This was unreasonable.
  11. In its stage 1 complaint response on 20 April 2022, the landlord confirmed the action it had taken and the actions it had agreed with the resident moving forward. It recognised it had failed to communicate effectively with the resident and acknowledged there were times it had not met the service it was expected to deliver. The landlord offered £50 compensation for the service failures. As there were other failures not identified by the landlord, for example, the lack of a risk assessments and action plans, the offer was not proportionate to the failings.
  12. The evidence confirms there were no further reports made. The landlord completed case reviews in June and July 2022, but there is no evidence it communicated with the resident to discuss these. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with policy.
  13. Between 3 and 8 August 2022, Mind (acting for the resident) and the landlord exchanged a series of emails in which Mind confirmed the resident was not living in the flat but was experiencing ASB when visiting. It asked the landlord to review the case and to contact the resident to discuss further. The landlord confirmed the actions it had taken, its involvement with the local authority and the police, and the installation of NME which it said if it had known the resident was away, it would have fitted it another time. It confirmed ad hoc recordings could not be used as court evidence as they could have been recorded in another location. The landlord confirmed it would provide an update after a further visit to the block; however, there is no evidence it did. This was a communication failure by the landlord.
  14. The landlord’s records confirm no further contact was received from the resident. On 2 December 2022 it contacted the resident for an update. It told the resident it had been visiting the block regularly and speaking to the neighbour about the noise. It confirmed a further visit was due the following week and for her to provide any issues so they could be addressed with the neighbour. This was reasonable.
  15. The resident responded on 19 January 2023 when she said she saw the same issues when she visited her flat. She said despite the reports to the police and the landlord, and the recordings provided, it was not taking the correct actions, and it was making her mentally and physically sick. There is no evidence of a response from the landlord at the time. The landlord did not demonstrate an understanding of how the matter was affecting the resident, it missed a further opportunity to complete a risk assessment and identify any vulnerability or complete an action plan. This was not in line with policy and was a communication failure.
  16. The landlord’s records state it had not received any further reports since before Christmas, that it had been in regular contact with the neighbour above and was monitoring the behaviour. It closed the ASB case on 12 May 2023. This was not appropriate as the resident had reported the continued ASB in her contact with the landlord in January 2023.
  17. The resident escalated her complaint on 19 July 2023. The landlord spoke to her on 21 July 2023 when it advised the previous case had been closed as no further reports had been made. It said it was unable to find a log of any ASB following the stage 1 response on 20 April 2022. The resident confirmed she had not lived in the property since January 2022 but visited to collect post and she felt worried going back. She confirmed she had not made any recent reports of ASB, but she would send the landlord evidence to confirm the reports she had previously made. There is no evidence the resident provided the evidence.
  18. The landlord contacted the resident again on 15 August 2023. It asked what aspect of the ASB she wanted to escalate as there had been no reports from her since the case was closed in May 2023. This was reasonable so it knew what to investigate. The resident said she had not reported anything as she was not living there, but felt intimidated by the swearing, constant comings and goings and arguing. The resident agreed to send the evidence previously discussed. The landlord agreed an action plan and a copy was sent to the resident on 17 August 2023. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy.
  19. In its final complaint response on 6 October 2023 the landlord confirmed the actions taken to date. It confirmed it would continue to monitor the ASB case it had opened, but said there was limited evidence available, and it would be unable to monitor the situation indefinitely. It informed the resident if there was no further evidence, the case would be closed. The landlord confirmed it would contact the resident to agree the action plan moving forward. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy.
  20. In its final complaint response, the landlord also acknowledged a lack of sufficient record keeping which meant it could not be confident on the action taken or the action plans agreed. It identified there had been case reviews, but without contact to the resident. The landlord acknowledged it had failed to follow its ASB Policy and increased the initial offer of compensation to £700. This was proportionate and in line with its Compensation Statement.
  21. Furthermore, the landlord informed the resident it had addressed its failures through training and confirmed it had introduced additional quality assurance steps. This was reasonable and demonstrated the landlord had followed our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  22. Considering the above, we find reasonable redress. This is because the landlord:
    1. demonstrated a thorough investigation into the previous ASB case management
    2. acknowledged it had failed to follow its ASB Policy and there had been a lack of communication
    3. offered redress that was in line with its Compensation Statement
    4. demonstrated learning because of its service failures
    5. was clear in its communication to the resident regarding the next steps it would take to address and monitor the ASB 

Leaks from the flat above

  1. The resident’s Lease Agreement states:
    1. the landlord must maintain the main structure of the building including the foundations, all exterior and all-party walls and structures from the common halls, staircases, landings and passages, and all electrical fittings (except inside an individual flat)
    2. the resident is responsible for keeping in good and substantial repair all fixtures and fittings therein and reinstate and replace the demised premise and every part thereof including all doors and door frame, floors and ceilings, fixtures, and fittings
  2. The landlord has not provided a Repair Policy, however its website states it will:
    1. maintain communal areas and inspect for defects
    2. respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours (including uncontainable leaks), complete routine repairs within 20-working days and planned repairs within 60-working days
  3. The resident reported a leak from the flat above on 16 January 2022. The landlord attended out of hours the same day, located the leak that was found on a pipe leading to the tap under the bath. It replaced the part and the leak was stopped. This was appropriate as it was within the repair timescales and repair responsibilities.
  4. Further to the repairs, the landlord inspected the resident’s property on 27 January 2022. This was completed in a reasonable timeframe and provided the landlord with the opportunity to confirm the repairs that were the resident’s responsibility. This was appropriate as it was in line with the Lease Agreement. The resident confirmed she had made an insurance claim and that the insurance company had confirmed the communal repairs would be completed with her repairs.
  5. In her stage 1 complaint on 21 March 2022, the resident said she did not think the landlord had managed the reports of the leak properly and asked for reassurance that it had repaired the leak and that it would not happen again. In its stage 1 response on 20 April 2022, the landlord confirmed its findings regarding the cause of the leak and the action taken to rectify it. It said it could not guarantee that further repairs may not be needed in the future; however, it confirmed the repairs had been completed and the leak had been stopped. This was reasonable response from the landlord.
  6. There was no further report of a leak from the property above until 21 May 2023, 16 months later. This would indicate the leak was not recurring, and the previous repairs had been successful. Although there are no repair records to confirm the actions of the landlord, in its stage 2 response dated 13 June 2023, it advised it attended to the flat above out of hours but did not gain access. It returned on 25 May 2023 when the leak was found under the bath but from a different location to the previous leak. The landlord completed the repairs and the leak was stopped. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy and in line with its repair responsibilities.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord again on 19 July 2023 when she alleged the leaks from the flat above were caused deliberately. On 8 August 2023, the landlord confirmed this was the first time this allegation had been made, therefore, it would be managed as ASB and not through the complaint process. This was appropriate as it was in line with the Complaint Policy.
  8. The landlord responded to the resident’s allegations on 15 August 2023. It advised there had been leaks from the property, but it was highly possible the resident had not seen them due to the locations (under the bath, behind the bath panel). It said it could not prove the neighbour knew or did not know about the leaks. The landlord asked the resident if she wanted it to arrange a surveyor to check the property, but the resident declined the offer. She confirmed she had visited the property with a loss adjustor and there was no sign of a leak. The landlord’s investigation and response to the resident’s allegations were reasonable.
  9. Furthermore, in its final complaint response on 6 October 2023 the landlord confirmed it had looked at its records and had spoken to the operative who had attended the flat on more than occasion. It confirmed there was no evidence the leaks were caused deliberately. It confirmed its understanding that the resident had made an insurance claim and advised it had supplied the repair information linked to the claim. The landlord said it had arranged a leak detection survey of the flat above, a stock condition survey and a health and safety inspection of the block, all of which did not raise any concerns.
  10. In summary, the landlord’s evidence confirmed it responded to the reports of leaks in line with its repair timescales. The leaks were located and rectified and additional inspections were completed to identify any underlying causes and to provide reassurance to the resident. The actions taken by the landlord were appropriate and were in line with its repair responsibility. As such a finding of no maladministration is appropriate.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s Complaint Policy states:
    1. it will investigate ASB issues through the ASB process
    2. it will acknowledge stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5-working days of receipt
    3. it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days and stage 2 complaints within 20-working days both from the acknowledgement date
    4. where an extension is required, it will be no longer than 10–working days for a stage 1 complaint and 20–working days for a stage 2 and it will seek to agree an extension with the resident and confirm the new deadline
  2. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords should:
    1. acknowledge, define, and log stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5-working days of receipt
    2. issue a full response to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days of the acknowledgement, and within 20-working days of a stage 2 complaint escalation request
    3. decide whether an extension to these timescales is needed and inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10-working days for stage 1 complaints (20 working days for stage 2 complaints) without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident.
  3. The resident contacted us on 18 March 2022 when she referred to the ASB and the leak from the flat above. We contacted the landlord the same day and asked it to raise a complaint and respond by 1 April 2022. The landlord logged and acknowledged the complaint on 21 March 2022. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy.
  4. The landlord’s records state it emailed the resident on 14 April 2022 to extend the deadline to 21 April 2022. It is noted the landlord communicated the extension to the resident; however, it was not done until after the response was expected. This was unreasonable as the extension should have been discussed at an early point in the process. Also, the landlord has not provided a copy of its email to the resident therefore it is not known if it explained the reason for the delay. This is a record keeping failure.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 20 April 2022 which was in line with the extended deadline given. The landlord’s response addressed the concerns raised by the resident, demonstrated a thorough investigation, highlighted service failures in its handling of the ASB and the learning taken to address these. It confirmed it would close the case if the resident had not contacted within 14 days of the response date. This was reasonable.
  6. On 22 May 2023 the resident asked to escalate the complaint regarding the leak from the flat above. Although this was 13 months after the stage 1 complaint, the landlord used its discretion and investigated the concerns raised. It acknowledged the escalation on 23 May 2023, and provided its stage 2 response on 13 June 2023. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy.
  7. On 19 July 2023, 15 months after receiving the stage 1 complaint response, the resident asked to escalate the complaint regarding the ASB. The landlord contacted the resident on 21 July 2023 to discuss the escalation request. Its notes state the resident referred to incidents from over a year ago with her confirming she had not lived in the property since January 2022. The landlord informed the resident it could not act if there had been no further reports made. The landlord gave the resident time to provide additional information to support her escalation request, after which time it would inform her of the next steps. This was reasonable; however, the resident did not provide the information discussed previously.
  8. On 8 August 2023 the landlord contacted the resident in connection with the ASB complaint escalation request. It confirmed it would not be able to investigate the complaint as the issues raised occurred over 6 months and there had not been any recent reports. This was appropriate as it was in line with the landlord’s Complaint Policy.
  9. The resident contacted us on 10 August 2023 to advise of the landlord’s response to her escalation request. She said due to ill health, surgery and living in a hotel following the damage from the leak, she had not been able to escalate the complaint sooner. We advised due to the time that had passed the landlord may raise it as a stage 1 complaint and if so, she would need to follow the complaint process. We asked the landlord to consider the extenuating circumstances and review the matter at stage 2 as a stage 1 response had been issued in 2022.
  10. The landlord initially said it would respond as a stage 1 complaint; however, after investigating, it used its discretion and investigated the complaint at stage 2 of its complaint process. The resident asked for additional time to provide the information she wanted to provide to the landlord. She understood this would delay the landlord’s response. The landlord received the resident’s information on 25 September 2023, and it provided its final complaint response on 6 October 2023. While this as outside of the policy timescales, the communication between the landlord and resident was regular and the delay was by mutual agreement. Under the circumstances, the delay was reasonable.
  11. The landlord confirmed it had investigated the complaint as a stage 2 complaint as it felt it was more appropriate and considering the evidence provided, it was unfair for the resident to go through the complaint procedure again. The landlord apologised for any confusion or frustration caused. The landlord’s response addressed the background of both the ASB and the leak, including the allegation that the leaks were a deliberate act of the neighbours above. It confirmed the historic actions taken and how it would address the ASB in the future. This was reasonable and provided clarity for the resident.
  12. In summary, we find service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because of the delay in communicating the delay in the complaint response to the resident, for not acknowledging this, and not offering any redress. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience to the resident, we have made an order for the landlord to pay £50 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance and is for a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks from the flat above.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence to confirm it has paid the resident £50 for the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £700 that was offered in the final complaint response. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for the failures in the landlord’s response to reports of ASB is made on the basis this compensation is paid.
  2. If it has not already done so, the landlord should provide the resident with a copy of the leak detection report.
  3. The landlord should inspect the communal areas for any repairs following the leak and provide the resident with a timescale for completing these.