Yorkshire Housing Limited (201914633)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914633

Yorkshire Housing Limited

30 January 2021

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 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 handling of repairs to the resident’s front door.
The landlord’s handling of cleaning of the communal areas on the estate.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.

Background and summary of events

The resident moved into the property on 21 December 2018 and had an assured tenancy with the landlord beginning on 21 December 2019. His tenancy ended on 23 March 2020. The property was a one bedroom first floor flat. The resident has vulnerabilities that the landlord is aware of.
On 27 June 2019 a job was raised by the landlord to fix the resident’s front door following a forced entry by police the previous day. The landlord’s records note that the door was “boarded” the same day. On 3 July 2019 an appointment was booked for the work to attend and inspect the door to be carried out on 16 July 2019.
On 16 July 2019 the contractor attended the property to measure the door, noting it would take four days to manufacture. The resident was advised that the landlord would contact him to confirm the new appointment once the door was manufactured. On 17 July 2019 the landlord confirmed with the resident that the appointment would go ahead on 26 July 2019 in the morning, with the tenant stating this was acceptable.
On 26 July 2019 the resident called the landlord to ask what time the contractor would attend, who told him that he would be called back. The resident was advised the same day that the door had not arrived yet, would likely arrive that weekend and then the contractor would possibly be installing it on 29 July 2019. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the lack of clarity.
On 29 July 2019 the resident rang the landlord to request an update. The landlord noted that there had been an issue with the door manufacturer and the appointment had not been booked in for that day, though the door had been picked up by the contractors.
On 31 July 2019 the landlord advised the resident that the door would be installed on 5 August 2019 in the morning. On that day, the work was carried out with the old door being removed and the new door being fitted along with a hardwood door frame with new locks, handles, a letter box and grade 13 fire door hinges. Records noted that the door had not been painted as it should have been and required a spy hole, and the landlord raised a new job for this.
On 15 October 2019 the resident rang the landlord who noted that the door repair work had been booked in for that afternoon. The resident rang back on the same day to note that the contractor had not attended the property. He was on hold for 40 minutes before being told that the decorator was off sick, and he expressed his dissatisfaction that he had not been advised of this and had instead been waiting at home all day.
On 16 October 2019 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about the works carried out to the front door.
On 17 October 2019 the landlord rang the resident but there was no answer and no means to leave a message.
On 18 October 2019 the landlord had a quality meeting with its contractors where it raised the issues that the resident had been having, specifically the changes to and missed appointments without notice, and the door having taken too long to replace with work remaining outstanding. It made a request to the contractors that they undercoat new doors in the depot before these were taken to site to fit.
On 21 October 2019 the undercoating to the resident’s new door was completed.
On 22 October 2019 the landlord rang the resident but there was no answer and no means to leave a message.
On 23 October 2019 the landlord rang the resident and conveyed the discussions that it had had with its contractors on 18 October 2019. It apologised for the time taken, noting that the undercoating had been carried out on 21 October 2019 and that the glossing would be carried out on 25 October 2019. The resident advised that an apology was not enough.
On 24 October 2019 the landlord provided its stage one complaint response regarding the complaint about the door. It set out the following:
1. It apologised for the fact that it was taking longer than it would have liked to carry out the painting works to the new flat door. It noted that this fell short of its service standards. It noted there had been a number of occasions where the contractor had missed appointments for a variety of reasons but then failed to make contact with the resident to advise of this this. It noted this was unacceptable and had been addressed with the contractor’s senior management.
2. As discussed with the resident via telephone, it had requested that going forward the contractors undercoat their doors before taking these out to replace. The issues around poor communication had also been addressed and would be monitored by the landlord going forward. It confirmed the gloss coat would be applied to the door the next day.
On 25 October 2019 the gloss coat was applied by contractors to the resident’s new door.
On 4 November 2019 the resident called the landlord to report ASB by his neighbour. He stated that the neighbour had approached him “shouting and screaming” about parking issues. The resident believed this was due to him parking in the space the neighbour regularly used. When the resident then went to his car, he found it had been graffitied with white paint writing “idiot parking”. The resident also noted that the neighbour had called him racist names from his window previously and continued to intimidate him when he sees him in the communal area. On the same day the landlord raised a report of ASB in its internal systems. It categorised the report as “Lower risk” based on it being vandalism and damage to property. It sent an acknowledgement of the report to the resident.
On 6 November 2019 the landlord’s internal records noted that the resident had vulnerabilities and it might be useful to visit him in the presence of his support worker so as to avoid causing any unnecessary distress.
On 8 November 2019 the resident telephoned the landlord to report that the neighbour had attempted to attack him, making him feel stressed and almost having a panic attack. He noted that the neighbour was with another person and while he was not physically hit he felt it was “very close”. As a result he noted he did not want to return to his property. According to the landlord’s final complaint response, it “investigated” on 12 November 2019 and took appropriate action, resulting in no further reports.
On 25 November 2019 the resident reported to the landlord that the neighbour had cracked his car windscreen with a hammer and may have poked a hole in his radiator. He noted this had been reported to the police and that he did not feel safe remaining in the property. The Tenancy Enforcement Officer the resident spoke to at the time attempted to arrange a meeting for the same day, and suggested meting away from the flat to collect police incident numbers and records and the resident agreed to this. However the landlord was unable to get through to the resident on the phone when calling back the same day to arrange this. Its internal records noted it would nevertheless carry out a cold call to both the resident and the neighbour that day. Its internal notes indicated the concerns the landlord had about the resident’s vulnerabilities and that a “sensitive approach” to both parties would be required until external evidence was ascertained e.g. police reports and other evidence.
On the same day, 25 November 2019, the resident’s mental health care coordinator/social worker called the landlord noting the resident had reported what had happened to him. The social worker raised the same concerns that the landlord had about ascertaining the accuracy of the statements. He noted that the resident had been trying to move from the area for some time because he did not like it, and thought the landlord would immediately move him to a “wonderful, nice place”. The SW had advised the resident that his first port of call for ASB incidents should be to report them to police who will deal with threats of harm, physical harm and criminal damage which he is alleging, and then to contact the landlord if he wanted emergency re-housing. The social worker had advised the resident that the landlord could look to assist but that there are processes that need to be followed and it cannot provide emergency housing. The landlord noted that it had tried to contact the resident that morning.
On the same day, 25 November 2019 in the afternoon, the landlord undertook a home visit with the resident. The resident provided the landlord with further details on the dispute noting he believed the dispute had started as a result of the earlier car parking issue. The resident noted that he had found abusive comments on his car, and that the neighbour had previously racially abused him. The resident had been in contact with the landlord’s housing team who had sent him a form to fill out to potentially relocate. The resident was advised that the landlord did not provide emergency housing and there was a process to follow with rehousing and this had to be supported with evidence from the police. The resident provided the landlord with the police incident numbers, and the landlord’s notes recorded that it would make an official submission to the police to progress the case and quantify the level of seriousness of the allegations.
While at the property, the landlord inspected the area where the resident parked his car, noting that there was no active CCTV which would have covered this area. It examined the resident’s windshield noting a 2 inch crescent crack in “the area where the old tax badge would have been”. It noted that the crack seemed to have been done from the inside as there was no feelable ridge on the outside of the glass, and no real indication that a hammer or anything was used on the car. It noted that there were some discarded lights and other small pieces of debris around the car.
On 9 December 2019 the landlord wrote to the neighbour, setting out the allegations made against him regarding verbal abuse including racist comments, as well as drawing graffiti on and causing damage to the resident’s vehicle. It requested a meeting on 11 December 2019 with the neighbour to discuss the report and hear their version of events. It also requested that, if the reports were accurate, that the behaviour not be repeated noting that it would represent breaches of the tenancy agreement which could result in enforcement action.
The landlord’s records indicate that on 11 December 2019 the landlord met with the neighbour who had set out the following in response to the allegations:
1. He denied shouting abuse, assaulting the resident, using foul language or writing on/causing any damage to the resident’s car
2. He accepted that he told the resident to “park the car properly” as it had been causing an obstruction at times to his ability to park, but denied that he had ever said the spot was only his.
3. He noted his communication skills were not good due to the language barrier, which caused frustration to him during the incident and the subsequent interview but eventually got his point across.
4. He noted he had received a visit from police to whom he had made the same points and had since avoided making any contact with the resident.
On 12 December 2019 the landlord contacted the police to request an outcome on their findings. The police advised that they had attended the property following the report but noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the neighbour had done what had been reported and he had made the same account to police that he had to the landlord. They felt the issue had arisen from a “language problem” and had closed the case.
On 16 December 2019 the landlord spoke to the resident’s mental health care coordinator/social worker. The landlord advised that the neighbour had denied the allegations and the police had found no evidence in support of these. The social worker noted this and stated that it would continue to engage with the resident to provide support.
On 20 December 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident noting that it had met with the neighbour. It noted the neighbour had denied the allegations and stated that he spoke to the resident regarding his parking because the vehicle was causing an obstruction where it was parked. As a result of his English being “not that good” he had difficulty in explaining the issue to the resident, which meant he may have come across as “a little frustrated” though had assured the landlord this was not his intention. The neighbour denied calling the resident names or writing the graffiti on the vehicle. The landlord had spoken to the police who had investigated but found that there wasn’t any evidence for them to pursue the issue further. It had also spoken to the mental health team and noted the resident could contact his support worker for assistance. It stated that it would close the case as there was not sufficient evidence to give the neighbour a warning.
On the same day, 20 December 2019, the landlord wrote to the neighbour, noting that he had denied the allegations of abusive and intimidating behaviour against the resident. It was noted that the neighbour’s account was that due to the language barrier the neighbour felt frustrated which may have unintentionally come across as intimidating. The landlord noted it had spoken to the police who had reiterated what the neighbour had said in the meeting, and based on this information it would not be taking any action against the neighbour.
On 5 February 2020 the resident raised a complaint about the condition of and cleaning standards in the communal areas of the block.
On 12 February 2020 the landlord carried out an audit of the cleaning on the block. The findings were that the cleaning was acceptable and the condition of the property satisfactory as at that date, though a recommendation was made that the internal decoration required attention.
On 13 February 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident on the telephone and noted that the audit of the cleaning had been carried out.
On 17 February 2020 the resident spoke to the Ombudsman, noting that the door repair job had not been completed with areas around the door frame needing replastering and redecorating. On the same day the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord noting that though the door had been replaced, the area around the frame still needed to be replastered and redecorated. It also noted that the resident’s report was that the communal areas had not been cleaned for up to a year.
On 18 February 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident with its stage one complaint response regarding the cleaning of the communal area, noting the resident’s concerns about the standard of cleaning, particularly on the third floor. It apologised for the inconvenience this had caused him. It set out what had been discussed in its phone call of 13 February 2020 regarding the audit of the cleaning in the communal areas.
On 20 February 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord requesting that the complaint be escalated.
On 20 February 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident noting that an inspection had been raised for 25 February 2020 for the maintenance surveyor to attend and assess the front door, following which it would raise the necessary works. It attached the cleaning audit report for the property in response to the resident’s request. It acknowledged the resident’s request that the complaint be escalated, noting a formal acknowledgement would be sent by post.
On 26 February 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident requesting confirmation of the issues to be investigated at stage two of the complaint process, being repairs to the front door, car parking, cleaning of the communal areas and the service received by the resident when he ended his tenancy, noted as being an additional item from the initial stage one investigations.
On 10 March 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident noting that it was in the process of carrying out the stage two investigation of the complaint and requested that the resident provide any evidence in support. It noted that it had, with the consent of the resident, agreed to consider the service provided to him at the end of his tenancy as a separate complaint. The complaint about the end of the tenancy is being considered by the Housing Ombudsman under case reference 2020004089, and therefore will not be considered as part of this investigation.
The resident responded on the same day, 10 March 2020, noting that the ASB in the car park had begun “earlier” in 2019, when pasta sauce was thrown over the cars of himself and another tenant. He noted he had reported the issues to the landlord and requested CCTV be installed in the car park, though noted that he did not recall any remedial action going ahead. Later in 2019, on Eid morning so 4 June 2019, he had found his car window covered with phlegm and spit. He reported this to the landlord who advised him to contact the police.
On 11 March 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord providing a photo of the police contact card left from 26 June 2019 when the police broken down his door in response to the perceived threat to “life and limb”, leading to the repair issue with the door. He noted that this occurred when he was in the midst of a nervous breakdown and had not contacted anyone for six months. He stated that the delay in repairing the door reminded him of his breakdown every time he used the boarded up and then unpainted door. He noted this was all he had in terms of evidence.
On 23 March 2020 the landlord provided its final complaint response in which it set out the following:
1. Having investigated the repairs to the resident’s flat door, it agreed with his feedback. The contractor had failed to attend appointments and keep the resident informed. It offered to pay £100 to the resident as a gesture of goodwill, noting that it had formally closed this complaint outside of the appeal deadline date of 24 October 2019.
2. It was difficult to investigate the issue of cleaning of the communal area due to the time which had elapsed since the alleged failure to meet its standards had occurred. It apologised that the resident felt the standard of cleaning was inadequate, but noted that there was no photographic evidence to support this position. The audit of the cleaning that took place seven days later on 12 February 2020 in response to the complaint showed levels of cleaning in line with the required standards. It felt it could take a learning from the situation that there had been a missed opportunity to involve the resident in the audit, which would have given the landlord the opportunity to see areas of dissatisfaction to then review against its service standards.
3. Regarding the alleged ASB which was previously investigated about the incident in the car park, the landlord included with the complaint response a breakdown of the information used to determine the investigation. It was unable to set out some details of actions it had taken regarding other residents due to data protection laws, but attempted to summarise this for the resident:
  1. The original complaint was reported and acknowledged on 4 November 2019, with a report of a neighbour attempting to attack the resident on 8 November 2019 and the landlord investigating and taking “appropriate action” on 12 November 2019.
  2. Following the report on 25 November 2019 the landlord investigated, attending the property at the time. Further information was provide leading to the landlord contacting the police, but neither body had been able to find evidence in support of the allegations. The landlord and police had both interviewed the perpetrator. It noted there could have been some better communication with the resident in early December 2019 but that this would not have changed the outcome.

Policies and Procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the premises including outside doors and glazing of doors and windows which are not broken by residents or their family/friends or visitors. It is also responsible for internal doors, door frames, door hinges and skirting boards (but not including painting and decoration).
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that routine repairs will be completed within 28 calendar days of reporting.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out:
1. ASB can be anything from low level nuisance to serious violent or criminal behaviour. It includes all behaviour that impacts negatively on residents quality of life in and around their homes whether that is unkempt gardens, dogs barking, late night noise and disturbance or harassment due to race, sexuality or religion. Domestic violence or abuse is a category of ASB and a breach of the tenancy agreement.
2. It encourages residents to report ASB promptly.
3. Where ASB occurs, it will respond quickly by carrying out interviews, seeking evidence, issuing warnings, seeking early resolutions through mediation, issuing formal cautions and taking enforcement action. It will keep all parties regularly updated. It will use legal action when necessary, but will work with parties to resolve problems without resorting to legal action.
4. It will make use of prompt interviews and regular updates, use of CCTV and other support systems.
The landlord’s ASB procedure document sets out various steps for the landlord to take in response to allegations of ASB
1. The landlord will contact the resident at least fortnightly about the case
2. It can use a range of evidence gathering tools including incident diaries, interviews with victims and perpetrators, sound recording equipment, professional witnesses, evidence from other agencies etc.
3. At stage one the report will be recorded and contact made with the resident within five working days to arrange an interview (face to face or by telephone). The case will be assessed as to whether it is urgent, which would be cases whether there is violence or threats of violence, hate abuse or crime, deliberate damage to property etc. In an ‘urgent’ case, both resident and alleged perpetrator (if appropriate) should be interviewed within 24 hours of the initial report.
4. In non-urgent cases, the perpetrator should be interviewed within five working days of the resident’s interview. The circumstances will then be considered and next steps put in place as set out in the ASB policy, including gathering evidence from external sources including the police.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a two stage complaint policy:
1. A stage one complaint must be made within three months of the event giving rise to the complaint. An acknowledgement will be made within two working days and the landlord aims to provide a formal response within ten working days of receipt.
2. A stage two complaint/escalation request must be made within eight weeks of the stage one response or eight weeks after the final proposed resolution identified in the stage one response, whichever is longer. It does not appear to have a set deadline for the response.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the door

The door was broken down by police on 26 June 2019 and the undercoating applied on 25 October 2019. The landlord’s position was therefore that the length of time the repair was taken to be fully completed was approximately four months. This went well beyond the landlord’s stated repair policy timeframe of 28 days for routine repairs. The landlord acted appropriately in ensuring that the door was boarded within 24 hours, however following this there were a series of miscommunications with the door supplier and its contractors as to when the work would actually be carried out. This required the resident to repeatedly contact the landlord for updates when contractors did not turn up at scheduled times, causing him distress and inconvenience.
Despite the time taken to finalise painting, installation of the spy hole and the undercoating of the door, the actual door itself was replaced on 5 August 2019, which was approximately two weeks outside the landlord’s set time frame for the repair. Noting too that the door had been boarded immediately after the forced entry, the substantive repair therefore exceeded the landlord’s policy timeframes by a reasonably brief period, while it was issues of painting and other decoration that were outstanding for a number of months. Though this still demonstrated a failing by the landlord to adhere to its timeframes, and it was obligated to carry out the painting/undercoating to the door which was further delayed, it does demonstrate that the negative impact on the resident would have been significantly lessened once the door was installed six weeks after the forced entry.
Part of the delays were caused by the manufacturer of the door and the contractors lack of communication, though the landlord remains ultimately responsible for these. As a result, the landlord met with its contractors’ senior management and set out where it considered them to have failed to meet service standards. It took steps to ensure that such issues would not recur, such as requesting better communication from staff, ensuring appointments were not missed and requesting that undercoats be applied to doors before they are taken out to resident’s properties. In doing so it recognised its failings and took practical steps that indicate it had learned from these.
The landlord acknowledged that the length of time the repair was outstanding, the lack of communication and the missed appointments were unacceptable and made an offer of £100 in recognition of the delay and mental distress caused to the resident. This was an appropriate step to take in recognition of its failings and demonstrated that it had taken on board the concerns raised by the resident and recognised the lengths he had to go to to get updates on the process in June and July 2019. The landlord acted positively in considering the escalated complaint and making the compensation offer for the door repairs issue despite the escalation request coming outside of the deadline set out in its correspondence with the resident and policy.
The resident reported on 17 February 2020 the door frame still needed replastering and redecorating, noting that he considered the door repair to therefore not have been completed. The landlord acted appropriately in arranging for a maintenance surveyor to attend the property and inspect the report, noting that it would undertake further work as necessary. While the resident may have considered the repair to therefore remain outstanding at this point, the landlord’s repairs policy specifically sets out that it is not responsible for redecorating of internal doors. There is also no indication that there was any evidence of the repair being outstanding provided to the landlord between the application of the gloss coat of the door on 25 October 2019 and the resident raising the report on 17 February 2020.

Cleaning of the communal areas of the estate

The resident raised the complaint about the condition of the block on 5 February 2020. The landlord has reasonably pointed out that it was difficult to investigate the issue due to the length of time that elapsed since the alleged failure to meet its service standards i.e. between the alleged failure and the report, with the resident having stated that the property had not been cleaned properly for approximately a year. There is no evidence to support the position that the area had not been cleaned for a year, such as contemporaneous records or reports by the resident, and the landlord has denied the complaint on the basis that it was therefore unable to take action earlier.
When the landlord was made aware of the reports, it undertook a thorough audit of the block within a week. The report of this audit, which has been reviewed by the Ombudsman, sets out the landlord’s assessment of each area of the block and specifically notes that there were no issues with access, egress, problems with the pathways or bin area. It also established that there was no evidence of hypodermics, graffiti or fly tipping. It has supported this position with photos included as part of the report, which include a photo of what appears to be the cleaning schedule for the block that shows a consistent schedule of cleaning every three or four days over December 2019 through to early February 2020. Its findings were that the condition of the block was acceptable which therefore indicated that the cleaning regime in place was satisfactory, though it noted that the internal decoration required attention. It provided a prompt update to the resident regarding this the following day.
The landlord did recognise that it could have done better as part of the substantive response to the complaint, in that it could have involved the resident in its audit of the block. Nevertheless, having reviewed the records of the audit which included photographs of the various areas inspected, it is evident that the landlord undertook a thorough examination in response to the reports and found no evidence to substantiate the resident’s claim.

Response to reports of Anti-Social Behaviour

Our role at the Housing Ombudsman is to establish what was communicated to a landlord in terms of both the reporting of ASB and the complaint, before then considering the steps taken by the landlord attempting to address and resolve the issue. The Ombudsman does this by considering the evidence provided by both parties, including the reports of ASB. Our role is not to establish whether or not ASB has taken place, but rather to consider the landlord’s response to any reports made. As set out in the landlord’s final complaint response, it has undertaken various steps with this goal in mind.
Following the resident’s first report of ASB regarding the particular neighbour on 4 November 2019, the landlord recorded the details and classified the report as “lower risk” based on it being about vandalism and damage to property. It promptly sent an acknowledgement to the resident, and its internal records two days later noted that it was considering how best to investigate the report given the resident’s recognised vulnerabilities. It gave appropriate consideration to these noting that the presence of his support worker may assist to limit any unnecessary distress.
Following the resident’s second report of the confrontation with the neighbour on 8 November 2019, the landlord carried out an “investigation” though there is limited evidence of what this involved beyond reviewing the neighbour’s file. Its position was that in response to this later report it took “appropriate action”, with its internal records on 12 November 2019 noting that it had undertaken some sort of investigation. However there is limited evidence of any further action taken in the period following this until the next report on 25 November 2019.
When the report on 25 November 2019 was made regarding the alleged damage to the resident’s car and his reporting of this to the police, the landlord acted promptly to arrange a visit to the resident on the same day while also suggesting this be done away from the block so as to cause less stress to the resident. Though it had some trouble making contact with the resident during the day, it acted appropriately by making a cold call to both the resident and the neighbour to gather evidence while also recognising that it would need external evidence from sources such as the police to substantiate the allegations and take any potential further/enforcement action.
The landlord communicated with the resident’s social worker on the same day, setting out concerns about the resident’s vulnerabilities and taking on board the advice from the social worker as to how best approach the situation and the risks involved. The social worker’s position was the same as the landlord, communicating to the resident that the police would need to be contacted first in any circumstances of threats to body or criminal damage, and that only following this could it contact the landlord about potential moves. Upon visiting the resident on the same day, the landlord conveyed the same information to the resident that the social worker had, setting out the processes that would need to be gone through to substantiate the allegations with evidence from police as well as noting the requirement for this to support an application for rehousing. It undertook a thorough inspection of the block, attempting to gather evidence from CCTV unsuccessfully and examining the car to see if there was any evidence in support of the allegations, concluding that there was minimal evidence at best.
The landlord’s actions following the report demonstrated a thorough attempt to investigate the resident’s concerns. It made contact with the neighbour arranging an interview with him, as required under its policy to allow him to respond to the allegations against him. In this interview it ascertained information that showed how the dispute in the car park may have arisen which was largely due to language issues and the neighbour’s frustration. It reasonably concluded that there was no risk to the resident given the neighbour had already spoken to police, explained why the situation had been misunderstood as threatening and was at that point ensuring he had no contact with the resident. It followed up this interview by contacting the police who substantiated the neighbour’s account, and stated that there was no evidence to support the resident’s allegations. The landlord also acted appropriately in conveying these findings to the resident’s social worker, noting the distress that had been caused to him even though the reports of ASB had been found to be unsubstantiated and the need to provide him with further support. These findings were conveyed to the resident as well as the neighbour in an appropriate manner, setting out the investigations that had been undertaken and the reasons for the landlord closing the case.
The landlord requires evidence of any alleged anti-social behaviour to take action, as set out in its Anti-Social Behaviour Policy. In communicating with the resident, the landlord outlined the progress of the ASB investigation and the steps being taken by the landlord to resolve the resident’s concerns. It acknowledged that the situation was causing distress to him while also emphasising that it was required to follow strict policies and legal processes so as to fulfil its obligations to both him and the neighbour. It sought to gather its own evidence by interviewing the relevant parties and attending the property to observe the site of the alleged incident and find any physical evidence in terms of the car. Additionally it maintained appropriate contact with police and the resident’s social worker so as to both gather evidence and establish the best approach to take to the investigation so as to safeguard the wellbeing of the resident.
Though the resident later raised reports in March 2020 that there had also been ASB issues in early 2019 and then June 2019, these were not reported to the landlord at the time. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that residents have a responsibility to report ASB incidents promptly so as to allow the landlord the opportunity to investigate while evidence may still be available and take steps to resolve the issue at the time it arose. The landlord largely responded in a prompt manner to the contemporaneous reports of ASB in November 2019, and would have been unable to investigate to any meaningful level the reported events of the first half of 2019 given the length of time that had passed since then.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress regarding the repairs to the resident’s door.

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of communal cleaning on the block.

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.

Reasons

The landlord failed to adhere to its timeframes in replacing the resident’s door. While it has demonstrated that some of the delays were caused by the manufacturer and its contractors, it remains responsible for these. It has acknowledged these failings, given feedback to its contractors to ensure the issues do not recur and apologised to the resident. Furthermore it has offered him compensation of £100 which is appropriate in the circumstances.

The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of issues with the communal area’s cleaning standards promptly after it received these. It carried out a thorough investigation of the complaint and has provided the results of this to the Ombudsman in the form of a report which indicates no significant failings and is supported by evidence.

The landlord largely acted appropriately in response to the allegations of ASB brought to it by the resident. While there were some delays in its responses to the resident following the initial reports, these were minimal and there is evidence that it was carrying out some investigations internally. From 25 November 2019 onwards it carried out a thorough investigation, meeting with the resident and the alleged perpetrator to clarify the various accounts of events, gathering evidence from the site of the alleged incident, seeking support for the resident from his social worker and contacting the police to ascertain what evidence they had in support of the resident’s allegations. It largely adhered to its ASB policy in this regard and attempted to find a solution for the issue that protected the interests of all parties, while validly forming the view that there was not enough evidence to take further action.

Recommendations

The landlord, within the next four weeks if it has not done so already, to pay to the resident the sum of £100 previously offered to him.

The finding of reasonable redress is conditional on the above recommendation being implemented.