Westminster City Council (201916034)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201916034

COMPLAINT 202118725

Westminster City Council

16 March 2022

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s housing transfer application.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).
3. Response to the resident’s enquiries concerning dog ownership.
4. Response to the resident’s reports of draughts coming through the windows and doors at the property.
5. Response to the resident’s reports of problems with the bin chute at the property.
6. Complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 (m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the landlord’s response to the resident’s housing transfer application.
Paragraph 39 (m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.”
The landlord is a local authority and complaints concerning a local authority’s handling of housing allocations are matters for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. Therefore, this aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The remaining five complaints about the landlord’s response to the resident’s: reports of draughts coming through the windows and the door, ASB, problems with the bin chutes, enquiries concerning dog ownership and its complaints handling are assessed below.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is owned and managed by the local authority landlord. The property is a one bedroom flat on the ninth floor of a block of flats.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process. At both stages the response time for the landlord is ten working days.
Paragraph 3.5 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint handling code says that if a complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction it shall be progressed to the next stage in accordance with the landlord’s procedure.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that it when it receives a report of ASB it aims to respond, where resources permit, within 24 hours to all incidents. On receiving a report of ASB the landlord will log the report on its housing management system, and investigate the incident, advise on options and, where appropriate, agree a course of action for tackling the problem.
The landlord’s tenant’s handbook says that following reports of repairs required it will attend the property and complete any work within 28 days
The landlord’s compensation policy says that compensation can be paid for time & trouble in pursuing a complaint and as a general rule the amount can be calculated as £250 per year (pro rata for longer or shorter periods). Compensation can also be paid for distress and inconvenience.
On 21 February 2019 the resident emailed the landlord, requesting to be rehoused because:
1. She said the windows and the front door at the property caused a draught, and she had been informed when she moved to the property that the windows and the front door would be replaced in 2013. She said that the property being cold was having an impact on her health.
2. She was concerned about the number of dogs in the block of flats as she had been informed when she moved in that dogs were not permitted. She had had altercations with her neighbour regarding his dog and wanted to know if the rules regarding dog ownership had changed.
3. She was concerned about an increase in ASB with young people congregating, drinking and taking drugs near her flat at night.
4. The noise from the bin chutes was disturbing her.
The landlord sent letters requesting the resident complete a medical assessment form to support her transfer request on 15 May 2019 and 5 June 2019.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 October 2019 stating that as she had not had a response to the issues raised in her email dated 21 February 2019, she wanted to raise a complaint. The resident sent a complaint to the landlord on 25 October 2019. She said she had not received any further correspondence following the landlord’s confirmation of receipt of her transfer application, despite sending several follow-on emails. She said her issues with the dogs in her property, with her neighbour and his dog, the property condition and ASB reports had not been addressed.
The landlord called the resident on 7 November 2019 regarding the ASB issues she had reported. The resident said that she couldn’t identify where the neighbour she had had altercations with lived. The landlord advised that it was limited in the action it could take but if she could identify the dog owner it could address any breaches of tenancy. The landlord also opened an ASB case to investigate the youths congregating on stair wells.
The landlord sent its stage one response to the complaint to the resident on 8 November 2019. In its response the landlord:
1. Said that the issues the resident had raised would be investigated as ASB and it would be contacting her regarding this.
2. Advised her to report any further incidents of ASB to the police.
3. Said that it had asked that she be contacted so the landlord could make an appointment to inspect the property condition.
4. Apologised that it had not contacted her earlier to discuss the issues.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 13 November 2019 advising that it had logged the ASB case and would be providing regular updates.
On 25 November 2019 the resident escalated the complaint about ASB from dogs on the estate and again asked the landlord to clarify the rules concerning dog ownership.
The landlord tried to contact the resident several times throughout December 2019 and January 2020 to discuss the ASB but had no response.
The landlord sent a stage two response to the resident on 30 January 2020. In its response it said that it was only addressing the resident’s complaint about her housing transfer request as the other complaints had received a separate response on 8 November 2019. The landlord said that if the resident wished to pursue the other complaints, she “must do so via the Housing Ombudsman.”.
The landlord called the resident on 13 February 2020. She said a group of ten youths had been outside her flat until 6.30pm, causing lots of noise. It said it would “ask the DWO to patrol around 6pm to see if they can apprehend youths” and advised her to call the police and provide it with a reference number if there were further issues.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 12 June 2020 as it had been unable to contact her via telephone. It said it had been working with the police to extend the community protection notice (CPN) that was currently in place for the area to give police more powers to deal with repeat offenders. It asked whether she would be able to provide a witness statement. The resident responded on 15 June 2020 and said she would provide a statement.
The landlord called the resident on 22 July 2020 and confirmed it had obtained the CPN zone extension. The resident agreed to close the ASB case.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 November 2020 stating she was concerned with the increasing number of dogs living on the estate and she had had an altercation with her neighbour’s dog the previous day. She again asked to know the landlord’s policy on dog ownership. In later correspondence with the resident, the landlord said it failed to forward this to the relevant team, but did so on 9 December 2020
Following communication from the resident, on 22 March 2021, this Service requested the landlord provide a stage two response for the outstanding issues.
The landlord emailed the resident on 14 April 2021 apologising for its failure to act upon her request to escalate the complaint following its stage one response dated 8 November 2019. The landlord said that following receipt of her escalation request it had forwarded the resident’s email to its ASB team and housing management team requesting that they contact her to further discuss the issue about the number of dogs on the estate. The landlord also said that due to the length of time since her escalation request, it had tried to call her to confirm what the outstanding issues were, but it had not been able to speak to her.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 April 2021 outlining the outstanding issues in her complaint. She repeated that she was concerned by the number of dogs in the flats as she had been informed when she moved in that dogs were not permitted and that the ASB issues were ongoing. She also said the property was still cold due to the draught from the doors and windows and again said that the noise from the bin chute was disturbing her.
The landlord replied to the resident on 21 April 2021. It said it would assess the issues of dog ownership and ASB in its stage two response and it would address the new issues she had raised in a separate stage one response. The resident responded the same day and stated she had previously raised the issues with property condition in her initial letter on 21 February 2019 and the issues had been addressed in the stage one response. She queried why a new complaint was being raised.
On 28 April 2021 the landlord informed the resident that a repair order to re-seal the front door had been raised with an appointment booked for 17 May 2021.
The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 30 April 2021 and advised the resident that the windows didn’t need repair as they were operating correctly.
On 4 May 2021 the landlord sent the resident a stage one complaint response addressing the complaint about draughts coming through the windows and the door at the property.
In its 4 May 2021 stage one response the landlord said that the complaints were not upheld as:
1. It had not found any reports of draught entering the property made to its repairs contact centre and it therefore had not been given the opportunity to check the condition of the door and windows.
2. Following the inspection carried out on 30 April 2021 it did not consider the conditions of the current windows to provide inadequate protection.
3. The major works to renew the windows to all properties in the block were scheduled to start in 2022 with communication about the project due to be sent to all residents by the end of 2021.
4. A stock condition survey had been carried out in November 2020. The surveyor had checked the windows and advised in terms of repair to the windows, there was nothing that could be done but “due to the age of the windows and general wear and tear, they are not providing adequate protection from harsh windy weather conditions.”
The resident sent the landlord an email on 5 May 2021 saying that it hadn’t explained why it was dealing with the complaint about the windows and door as a new stage one complaint. She also said that the stage one complaint response had not addressed her complaint about the bin chute.
The landlord replied to the resident on 6 May 2021:
1. Repeating that that the estate was currently getting new windows and she would have to wait for the programme to reach her block.
2. Repeating that there were no further works to raise as a result of its visit to the property on 30 April 2021.
3. Attaching a copy of the resident’s original stage 1 complaint form dated 25 October 2019 and saying that in the original complaint the resident had complained about:
  1. The increasing number of dogs in the block and an altercation with her neighbour’s dog.
  2. The condition of property.
  3. ASB from youths congregating and smoking.
4. Saying that all the matters set out in the original complaint had been responded to and the original complaint had not detailed any specific problems with the property or issues with the bin chute. Therefore, apart from the issues with the bin chute, these issues had been dealt with as a new complaint and a stage one response issued on 4 May 2021.
5. Apologising that the stage one response dated 4 May 2021 hadn’t addressed the complaint about the bin chute. It said that:
  1. Its repairs team confirmed that there were no reports from other residents of noise or other problems from the bin chute.
  1. It had raised a repair order for rubber sealant to be fitted to the bin chute to help reduce the noise when opening and closing the chute.
6. Saying that it had escalated her original complaint and she would be receiving a stage two response.
The landlord attended the property on 17 May 2021 and inspected the door for draught proofing. The landlord’s notes of the visit say that the “door has a full rubber seal to the outside of the door and a brush strip attached to the door touching the threshold preventing draught going into the property on the inside there is a letterbox brush fitted and a brush draught excluder to the bottom of the door but bear in mind this is a wooden door and will never be 100% draught proof.”
The landlord called the resident on 25 May 2021 and advised her that no further works would be carried out on the door.
The landlord sent a stage two complaint response to the resident on 26 May 2021 saying that:
1. Although repair issues were raised in her letter to the landlord dated 22 February 2019 these hadn’t been investigated as part of the stage one response to the complaint made on 25 October 2019 as the letter hadn’t been submitted with the resident’s complaint form and therefore the investigator had been unaware of the repair issues.
2. It acknowledged that she had raised the issue with dog ownership on five separate occasions and it apologised that it had not clarified its policy.
3. Dog ownership was allowed if a resident gained permission, however if a dog caused a nuisance the landlord could take breach of tenancy action.
4. It would contact her for further information regarding the dogs she had reported, and it would remind dog owners of their responsibilities.
5. It apologised that she was still experiencing issues with ASB. It said the case had been previously closed as she had advised there had been no further incidents. It said it would open a new case and keep her updated.
6. It said a repair to reseal her front door had been completed on 17 May 2021.
7. Said that all windows in the flats were due to be replaced in 2022/2023.
8. Said that it had raised a repair to renew the rubber sealant in the bin chute to help reduce noise transference to her property.
9. Said that it would add signage next to the bin chute to remind people to be considerate when using it.
10. Offered her £250 compensation for service failure in handling her enquires regarding dog ownership.
The landlord’s letter dated 26 May 2021 was its final response to the resident’s complaints about the landlord’s
1. Response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Response to the resident’s enquiries concerning dog ownership.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 29 July 2021 asking to escalate the complaint that was the subject of the 4 May 2021 stage one response. The resident said that:
1. Despite the landlord telling here that the bin chutes would have new seals fitted on 25 May 2021, they had still not been fitted.
2. She had chased the landlord several timers for updates about the new bin chute seals but still didn’t know when the rubber sealant would be fitted.
3. She had raised the repair issues about the windows and the door in her email to the landlord dated 21 February 2019.
4. Although the landlord had said that no repair was needed to the windows it also said that its surveyor had said that the windows were “not providing adequate protection from harsh windy weather conditions.”
5. Despite a job being booked to reseal the front door at the property on 17 May 2021 this had not taken place.
6. Her complaint had not been handled correctly.
On 27 August 2021 the landlord sent the resident a stage two complaint response. In its response the landlord:
1. Said that although the resident had raised various issues in her escalation request dated 29 July 2021 some issues had already exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process so this stage two response would only deal with her complaints regarding the bin chute and the condition of the windows and door of the property.
2. Apologised that she had had to chase the landlord for an update concerning the work to the bin chutes.
3. Confirmed that the rubber seals to all of the bin chute hatches in the building had been replaced on 29 July 2021. The landlord had inspected the rubber seals on 12 August 2021 and the seals were intact and successful in dampening the noise when opened and shut.
4. Said that during the inspection of the rubbish chute on 12 August 2021, it had found that the bin chute hatch outside the resident’s flat was not fitting correctly and the noise on shutting was louder than elsewhere within the block. The landlord had therefore arranged for the hatch to be replaced and said that this should be completed by 9 September 2021.
5. Said that it would arrange for a letter to be delivered to all residents reminding them of the noise caused by using the bin chutes and asking them to avoid using the chutes at unsociable hours.
6. Said that it was working with the residents’ association to produce some ‘Community Standards’ to send to all residents and the residents association had asked that the hours of use for the bin chutes be addressed in the ‘Community Standards’. A flyer setting out the standards was due to be delivered by the end of September 2021.
7. Said that the repairs surveyor who visited the property in April 2021 had inspected the windows and door to determine if any repairs could be carried out to reduce any draughts and had concluded that there was nothing in terms of repairs that can be done to prevent draughts further. The stock condition survey carried out in November 2020 was to plan for the future major works scheme. The conclusion of that survey was that the windows and door should be replaced as part of the future major works programme, and it could not justify replacing the windows and door ahead of the programme as they were secure and functional.
8. Said that its major works programme had undergone a full review, predominantly to address the fire prevention works across the city. It said that it was sorry to advise that due to this, it was likely that the major works programme for the estate would now commence around 2026/2027.
9. Apologised that the repair that she had requested to apply a seal around the front door had not been carried out and that she had had to call the contact centre to get an update on the progress. However, it repeated that nothing further could be done to the door to improve its fit and the door met with the threshold to stop draughts from entering the property.
10. Said that the complaint was partially upheld. It said it was sorry the resident had had to pursue the repair to the bin chute, chase to get an update about the landlord applying a new seal to the door and for the delay in carrying out the recommended works to the bin chute. The landlord also said that it had failed to put up the notices on the bin chutes as recommended in its stage 1 response and to provide her with an update on the reason why notices were not suitable.
11. Offered £100 compensation, made up as follows: £50 for the time and trouble the resident had taken to pursue these issues and £50 for its failure to follow up on an agreed action from the stage 1 response.
The landlord’s letter dated 27 August 2021 was its final response to the following complaints:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of draughts coming through the windows and door at the property.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of problems with the bin chute at the property.
During the course of this investigation the landlord has informed this service that there was a delay in replacing the hatch on the bin chute outside the resident’s flat and the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the work has been carried out.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

The Ombudsman’s role is not to decide if the actions the resident reported to the landlord amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
During the course of this investigation the landlord has informed this Service that there have been further reports of ASB by the resident. Though it is appreciated that this would have been distressing for the resident, the Ombudsman’s role is to investigate complaints brought to it that have exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints process. This investigation report, therefore, concerns the ASB issues which were the subject of the landlord’s final response dated 26 May 2021.
In its responses to the resident’s reports of ASB in her complaint dated 25 October 2019 the landlord acted appropriately by:
1. Speaking to the resident about the ASB on 7 November 2019 and opening an ASB case.
2. Advising the resident to contact the police if there were further ASB incidents.
3. Trying to contact her to discuss the ASB issues throughout December 2019 and January 2020.
Following its conversation with the resident on 13 February 2020 in which she reported further incidents of ASB the landlord acted appropriately by:
1. Arranging for patrols in the area.
2. Working with the police to extend the CPN.
3. Closing the ASB case with the resident’s agreement on 22 July 2020.
However, the resident initially raised the issues of ASB in her letter to the landlord dated 21 February 2019. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the ASB or carried out any investigation until 7 November 2019 after she made a formal complaint, some 259 days later. This was inappropriate and in breach of the provisions of the landlord’s ASB policy that when it receives a report of ASB it aims to respond within 24 hours and will log the report, investigate the incident, advise on options and, where appropriate, agree a course of action for tackling the problem.
There was therefore maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiries concerning dog ownership

The resident first enquired about the landlord’s dog ownership policy on 21 February 2019 and, despite four further requests by the resident, the landlord did not respond to the enquiry until 26 May 2021, 27 months later. This represents maladministration by the landlord.
In its stage two complaint response dated 26 May 2021 the landlord:
1. Acknowledged that she had raised the issue with dog ownership on five separate occasions.
2. Apologised that it had not clarified its policy.
3. Explained the policy.
4. Offered £250 compensation.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman’s will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, explanation of the policy and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging, and apologising for, its failure to clarify its dog ownership policy.
The landlord also put things right by explaining its dog ownership policy.
The compensation offered by the landlord was appropriate and proportionate to impact of its failings on the resident as:
1. Whilst the landlord did not respond to the resident’s enquiries over a considerable period of time there was no permanent impact on the resident in not having the information about the dog ownership policy earlier.
2. The level of compensation offered (£250) was within the range set out in the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the resident. Examples could include a resident repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant
The Ombudsman notes that it would have demonstrated good practice by the landlord if it had detailed what steps it was taking to ensure that, going forward, it would not make similar failure in responding to resident enquiries. However, the landlord’s overall response was fair.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of draughts coming through the windows and door at the property

The inspection by the landlord’s surveyor on 30 April 2021 did not identify any repairs required to the windows at the property. Likewise, the landlord inspected the door at the property on 17 May 2021 and did not identify any repairs required. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of qualified staff inspecting the windows and, as no repair was identified, it was reasonable for the landlord not to offer to carry out any further works to the windows at the property.
The surveyor who conducted the stock condition survey in November 2020 said that the windows were not “providing adequate protection from harsh windy weather conditions” and recommended that they be replaced as part of the future major works programme. The landlord said that it could not justify replacing the windows and door ahead of the major works programme as they were secure and functional. This was a reasonable response by the landlord as no repair had been identified.
However, the resident first raised the issue about draught coming through the windows and doors with the landlord in her transfer request on 21 February 2019. It is noted that the resident did not raise the issues with draught with the landlord by reporting them as repairs. However, it would have demonstrated good practice on the part of the landlord to have sign posted the resident to its repairs contact centre.
The resident again raised the issue of the condition of the property in her complaint dated 25 October 2019, in which she referred to not receiving a response to the issues set out in her 21 February 2019 letter. In its complaint response dated 8 November 2019 the landlord said that it would be contacting her to make an appointment to inspect the property condition. However, there is no evidence that it did so.
The landlord did not inspect the windows at the property until 30 April 2021, after it had been contacted by this Service. This was 567 days after the landlord told the resident that it would be in contact to make an appointment to inspect the property.
The landlord did not inspect the door at the property until 17 May 2021, 587 days after the landlord told the resident that it would be in contact to make an appointment to inspect the property.
The landlord also mistakenly told the resident in its stage one complaint response dated 26 May 2021 that a repair had been “raised to reseal your front door, and this was completed on 17 May 2021.” However, the landlord apologised for this in its stage two complaint response dated 27 August 2021 and took this into account when offering £50 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble in chasing the landlord for updates. The level of compensation is assessed further below in relation to the resident’s complaint about problems with the bin chute.
The landlord’s delay in inspecting the property after the resident had informed it there were issues with its condition was inappropriate and in breach of the landlord’s policy obligations concerning responding to resident’s reports of repair. This represents maladministration by the landlord.

Response to the resident’s reports of problems with the bin chute at the property

The resident raised the issue of problems with the bin chute in her letter to the landlord dated 21 February 2019 requesting to be rehoused. It is noted that the resident did not raise the issue with the landlord by reporting it as a repair. However, as with the complaint about the windows and door, it would have demonstrated good practice on the part of the landlord to have sign posted the resident to its repairs contact centre.
The resident again raised the issue of the condition of the property in her complaint dated 25 October 2019 and referred to her 21 February 2021 letter. In its complaint response dated 8 November 2019 the landlord said that it would be contacting her to make an appointment to inspect the property condition. However, as set out previously there is no evidence that it did so.
The resident again raised the issues with the bin chute in its email dated 19 April 2021 clarifying her complaint. However, the landlord did not address the bin chute issues in its stage one response dated 4 May 2021.
The landlord first responded to the issues with the bin chute in its email to the resident on 6 May 2021, 573 days after the landlord told the resident that it would be in contact to make an appointment to inspect the property.
On 6 May 2021 the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had raised a repair order for rubber sealant to be fitted to the bin chute to help reduce the noise. In its complaint response dated 26 May 2021 the landlord also said that it would add signage next to the bin chute to remind people to be considerate when using it. The resident had to chase the landlord to clarify when it was going to carry out these actions.
The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging in its stage two complaint response dated 27 August 2021 that the resident had had to chase the landlord for an update concerning the work to the bin chutes and apologised for this and for it having failed to put up signs by the bin chutes.
The landlord also acted fairly and demonstrated a resolution focused approach by:
1. Replacing the rubber seals to all of the bin chute hatches in the building on 29 July 2021 and inspecting the seals on 12 August 2021.
2. Working with the residents’ association to produce some ‘Community Standards’ to send to all residents including hours of use for the bin chutes.
However, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that, as promised in its stage two complaint response, the landlord has sent a letter to all residents reminding them of the noise caused by using the bin chutes and asking them to avoid using the chutes at unsociable hours.
The Ombudsman has also not seen evidence that the landlord has put matters right by replacing the chute hatch outside the resident’s flat which it had said would be completed by 9 September 2021.
The landlord offered £100 compensation, made up as follows: £50 for the time and trouble the resident had taken to pursue the issue and £50 for its failure to install the signs which it had agreed to do in its stage one complaint response.
As set out above the delay in the landlord attending the property to inspect its condition, after it had said it would, was significant (573 days), causing the resident to have chase the landlord to deal with the bin chute issues on numerous occasions. Under the terms of the landlord’s compensation policy, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider offering compensation for the distress and inconvenient incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord not arranging to inspect the property as it had said it would, for 573 days.
Therefore, the landlord’s response was not proportionate, and the landlord has not made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were not proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

The landlord’s complaints handling

There was maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling as:
1. Despite the resident’s request to escalate her complaints about ASB and the dog ownership policy to stage two on 25 November 2019 the landlord told her that to pursue those complaints, she had to do so via this Service. This was in breach of the landlord’s complaints procedure and paragraph 3.5 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (see paragraph 9 above). Although the landlord apologised to the resident on 14 April 2021, its failure to act upon her request to escalate the complaint led to the resident to incur time and trouble in contacting this Service and significant delay in escalating the complaint and an apology didn’t put this right.
2. The landlord acted inappropriately in saying that the complaints about the draught from the windows and doors and the noise for the bin chute were not included in the resident’s original complaint dated 25 October 2019. In the resident’s complaint dated 25 October 2019 she referred to not having a response to her 21 February 2019 letter (in which she raised issues with the draughts and the bin chute) and said that the issues with the property were still outstanding. The landlord addressed these aspects of the complaint in its stage one response dated 8 November 2021 by saying it would be in contact to arrange an inspection of the property.
3. The landlord acted inappropriately after being asked by this Service in March 2021 to provide a stage two response for the outstanding by treating the complaints about the condition of the property (the draught from the door and windows and the noise from the bin chute), as a new stage one complaint.
4. Despite having confirmed to the landlord on 19 April 2021 that the complaint about the bin chute was still outstanding the landlord did not address this aspect of the complaint in its stage one response dated 4 May 2021.
5. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 29 July 2021 and the landlord issued its stage two response on 27 August 2021, 21 working days later and 11 working days after the 10 working day timescale set out in its complaints policy.
6. The £50 compensation offered by the landlord is not proportionate for the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures set out in this paragraph.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of draughts coming through the windows and door at the property.
3. Response to the resident’s reports of problems with the bin chute at the property.
4. Complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for the failures identified in its response to the resident’s enquiries concerning dog ownership.

Reasons

Following the resident’s reports of ASB in February 2019 there is no evidence that the landlord contacted her to discuss the ASB or carried out any investigation until 259 days later.
There was significant delay in the landlord inspecting the windows and door at the property after the resident had informed it there were issues with the condition of the property and it had said it would be inspecting it.
There was significant delay in the landlord addressing the issues with the bin chutes at the property.
The landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint in accordance with its complaints procedure and acted inappropriately in raising new stage one complaints. The landlord did not address the complaint about the bin chutes in its stage one response dated 4 May 2021 and delayed in issuing its stage two response dated 27 August 2021.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident £825 compensation. This is comprised of:
1. The £350 compensation previously offered if this has not already been paid to the resident.
2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
3. £75 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s response to her reports of draughts coming through the windows and door at the property.
4. £100 for the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of its response to the resident’s reports of problems with the bin chute at the property.
5. £200 for the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
The landlord must update this Service when payment has been made.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to contact the resident to confirm whether she is currently experiencing any ASB.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to confirm to the resident whether the bin chute hatch outside the resident’s hatch has been replaced and if it has not to arrange for the work to be carried out within six weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must update this Service when the work has been completed.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report, if it has not already done so, to send a letter to all residents in the resident’s block reminding them of the noise caused by using the bin chutes and asking them to avoid using the chutes at unsociable hours.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to:
1. conduct a management review of this case to identify what improvements can be made in the following areas:
  1. Its internal communications, especially concerning information being passed to the relevant teams.
  2. Its complaints handling, including ensuring that actions promised in complaint responses are followed up.
2. Provide this Service with a summary of the review.