Charnwood Borough Council (202109899)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109899

Charnwood Borough Council

12 June 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the residents reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and its subsequent offer of compensation.
2. complaints handling.

Background

The resident is a joint leaseholder of the landlord. He lives with his wife in a first floor flat.
For this report both husband and wife will be referred to as the resident. The resident has an advocate who will be referred to as the resident’s advocate. Their neighbour, who lives in the flat below, will be referred to as neighbour A.
The resident has told the landlord, and other agencies that the accumulative impact of the ASB has led to a significant deterioration in both their well-being, particularly in respect of their mental health. They state that this has been compounded by significant sleep deprivation, due to the noise being made late at night and early morning. Medical evidence of this has also been provided.
The lease agreement signed by the resident on 1 October 2018 sets out that the “landlord covenants with the tenant to permit the tenant peaceably and quietly to hold and enjoy the premises without any interruption or disturbances from the landlord or any other person claiming under or in trust for him”.
The landlord has an anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy that says that the landlord has an incremental approach to ASB. It reserves the right to escalate past parts of this incremental approach if the complaint is of so serious a nature as to represent a significant risk to members of the public. The incremental approach is explained as follows:
1. Incident reported.
2. If a criminal offence is disclosed, advise the complainant to report to the police if they have not already.
3. Verbal warning and if issued by landlord, share information with relevant parties.
4. Consider the vulnerability of the alleged perpetrator and make appropriate referrals as necessary.
5. Written warning.
6. Mediation offered.
7. Further breaches, consider legal action.
The ASB policy also states that it will “provide comprehensive support and help for victims and witnesses of anti-social behaviour having particular regard for those identified as being vulnerable”. It also aims to provide support to victims through means such as “providing additional security measures, seeking the assistance of other organisations and through sensitive handling of cases”.
The ASB policy includes the landlord’s approach to hate crime and hate incidents and says that “there is a distinct difference between a hate incident and a hate crime. A hate incident is defined as any incident, which may or may not constitute a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hate. A hate crime is defined as any hate incident which constitutes a criminal offence perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by prejudice or hate”. It gives examples of hate incidents as:
1. Racist incident
2. Homophobic incident
3. Transphobic incident
4. Faith related incident
5. Sectarian incident
6. Disablist incident
7. Ageist incident
The ASB Policy also sets out the landlord’s approach to complaints about noise and says that “council residents have the right to the quiet enjoyment of their homes”.
The landlord has a leaseholder’s handbook that sets out that if residents experience anti-social behaviour (ASB) it will take appropriate action as soon as possible. It has a dedicated ASB team who provide advice and take enforcement action to resolve tenancy and neighbourhood issues.
The landlord has a complaints policy that has an informal process, stage 0 and two formal stages (one and two). Complaints will be responded to within 10 working days, at stage 0, the complaint will be given to a senior officer / manager who will respond within 10 working days of receipt at stage one and at stage 2 the complaint will be given to the council’s customer experience team who will provide an independent review of the complaint within 20 working days of receipt. Where a complaint investigation is likely to exceed the allocated time frame, the investigating officer will advise the complainant in writing of the additional time required.
The leaseholder handbook also sets out the landlord’s response to complaints. It says that it aims to provide efficient, good quality services to its customers, it recognises that things can go wrong and will do its best to resolve complaints and try to learn from them.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord in June 2020 to say that a new neighbour, who had recently moved in, was causing a nuisance by making a noise that was affecting his and his wife’s sleep. On 14 June 2020, the resident approached neighbour A, at approximately 10pm and asked her to keep the noise down, they agreed, but the noise continued until 11.30pm. On 16 June 2020, the resident reported that he could smell cannabis coming from neighbour A’s property and on 22 June 2020, they reported that they could hear loud banging. On 25 June 2020, the resident said that neighbour A had dumped rubbish in the alleyway at the side of their property.
Reports continued to be made and on 13 July 2020, the police were called as it was alleged that neighbour A and a relative were making a noise at approximately 2am and when the resident asked them to be quiet, he was subjected to threats including an alleged threat to stab him. This was witnessed by another neighbour. In response, the landlord gave neighbour A, a verbal warning on 15 July 2020, they then made counter allegations, and the resident was also given advice about future conduct.
The resident continued to report noise and the smell of cannabis at various dates throughout August 2020, and on 18 August 2020, neighbour A was sent a written warning letter. On 20 August 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and told it that the situation with neighbour A “is getting out of hand” and that she was on the “verge of a nervous breakdown” and that it was affecting her personal and work life and that she felt “petrified in her own home”.
A meeting was held with the landlord and the resident on 27 August 2020. The resident disclosed that she was ill with a cancer scare and the stress was not helping. The following actions were agreed to resolve the situation:
1. The resident to keep a diary sheet to record incidents of noise.
2. The landlord to request that the council’s environmental health team install noise monitoring equipment at his home.
On 1 October 2020, the landlord installed noise monitoring equipment into the resident’s property that was left there until 8 October 2020.
On 2 October 2020, the Police were called a second time as it was alleged that neighbour A was playing music at a loud volume and when the resident asked for the volume to be lowered he was called a derogatory name which he perceived as hate related. The resident then smashed neighbour A’s window with his elbow. The resident accepted full responsibility for this and said that it was out of character and because of frustration with the situation. A community justice order was made, and the resident paid for the repair to the window. The landlord issued the resident with a written warning regarding this incident.
The resident called the police again on 11 October 2020, due to her and another neighbour being threatened by neighbour A. An unknown caller told the police that six or seven males were “fighting in the street with knives”. Police records say that on attendance there was no evidence of knives.
On 13 October 2020, the landlord told the resident that the noise monitoring equipment had highlighted two incidents when neighbour A’s music had been played at a level “indicative of nuisance behaviour” and said that it intended to consult with the legal services department about “positive action” to be taken. Mediation was also offered by the landlord, the resident agreed to mediate but neighbour A declined.
On 14 October 2020, the resident sent the landlord a letter from his doctor which said that the situation with neighbour A was affecting his and his wife’s mental health, and that he believed that the resident acted out of character by smashing the window and that there was “no history of aggression/violence in his records”.
On 2 November 2020, the resident submitted a community trigger request. However, this was not received by the landlord, who only became aware of it when the residents advocate asked for an update on its progress. Following further reports of noise and the smell of cannabis the landlord sent another warning letter to neighbour A on 23 November 2020.A second community trigger request was sent to the landlord and the local MP on 7 December 2020.
A meeting was arranged with the landlord and the resident and their advocate on 9 December 2020. At this meeting the advocate reported that they had been verbally abused by neighbour A. It was agreed that the landlord would submit a further request for noise monitoring equipment to be installed, and that the resident would submit weekly diary sheets for the landlord to review. The resident was also referred for support from a specialist agency.
On 1 January 2021, the resident called the police as the noise of a party could be heard, and four people could be seen congregating in the rear garden. At this time, the local area was in tier four lockdown, in accordance with the COVID-19 pandemic guidelines. The police asked the neighbours associates to leave but the resident reported that after the police left, the associates returned and were heard making threats towards the resident. The resident said that this made them feel anxious and fearful of being at home alone.
Noise monitoring equipment was installed in the resident’s home from 22 January 2021 until 29th January 2021.During this time 46 events were recorded totalling two hours and thirty minutes in duration, most recordings were made between 10pm and 1am. The local authority’s environmental protection team were asked to analyse the events and told the landlord that they were evidence of “close proximity living and not indicative of nuisance or ASB”.
The landlord contacted the resident on 4 February 2021, to tell them what the findings were. They noted that the resident was “not happy” and made threats towards his neighbour. The landlord referred the case to the joint action group (JAG) which is made up of partners working in the area to resolve incidents of ASB.
On 15 February 2021, the resident’s advocate advised the landlord that the resident’s wife was no longer staying at her home as the situation was affecting her mental health. She also queried why the support agency referral had not been made in December 2020, as the support provider had said that they could have supported the resident sooner. The landlord responded and said that the referral should have been made automatically by the computer system and that it would make further enquiries as to why it did not happen.
On 17 February 2021, the resident activated a further community trigger request. As part of the review, the local authority’s community safety partnership assessed all reports made and actions taken between 17 August 2020 and 17 February 2021.
On 26 April 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to say, as most of the recent reports were about noise, it wanted to send an officer out to listen to the noise to agree a level that would be deemed appropriate. It also advised that a problem with the boiler (that was also causing a noise) had been identified and that the boiler would be split so that the residents would no longer be able to hear neighbour A running a bath. It also wanted to carry out a structural/acoustic assessment of the property and was identifying a specialist who could do this for it, as environmental health had advised that they could not.
On 17 May 2021, the resident’s advocate complained to the landlord saying:
1. They were unhappy with the landlord’s response to their reports of ASB, they had activated the community trigger and had appealed its findings.
2. The landlord was biased in favour of neighbour A, and they were not happy with the tone of some of the emails sent.
3. Incidents had been logged incorrectly which might have impacted on the incremental approach taken by the landlord.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 June 2021 and said that she had been assaulted by neighbour A. The police were involved, and neighbour A had been arrested. The resident’s advocate told the landlord that the resident was “not good” and could not return home until neighbour A had gone. The landlord said that as the this was a criminal matter the police would lead on the investigation. Once it had been notified of the outcome of the investigation, it would assess the case and look to take further appropriate action in line with the incremental approach. It confirmed that there were conditions in place preventing neighbour A from returning to her home; however, this was not a permanent move and that neighbour A was still the legal tenant.
The landlord contacted the resident on 10 June 2021, to say that it needed more time to investigate the stage one complaint and said that a response will be provided by 25 June 2021. The complaint response was sent on 23 June 2021. The landlord said that it had carried out a thorough and comprehensive review of the issues raised in the complaint email and had spoken to the resident’s advocate on 22 June 2021. The landlord’s response found that:
1. There were case handling shortcomings, and that part of the complaint was partially upheld. However, the case was complex and involved allegations and counter allegations, and notwithstanding the shortcomings the landlord said that it had handled the case impartially, in a timely manner and had followed the incremental approach.
2. There was no evidence of bias in the way in which it handled the case. The landlord had not read anything in the emails that suggested a lack of professionalism or that words or terms used were rude or offensive. This part of the complaint was not upheld.
3. Notwithstanding the shortcomings identified, the enforcement actions were correct and in line with the incremental approach and any shortcomings would not have changed the severity of the enforcement action taken. This part of the complaint was not upheld.
The landlord’s response said that because of the complaint, it would:
1. Carry out rigorous risk assessment training with all ASB officers.
2. Issue guidance to staff on disclosing information to complainants and victims on legal action such as introductory tenancy extension.
3. Train its staff on use of the IT ASB recording system.
The landlord’s response also offered the resident an apology and £250 as a goodwill payment to compensate for the added distress and inconvenience and the impact on the resident.
Also on 23 June 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to apologise that an email sent by it on 18 June 2021, had distressed her. It confirmed that it was working with the police and as soon as they had provided it with witness statements it would obtain legal advice. It reiterated that actions taken up to that point had followed the incremental approach and had been “scaled and escalating, ranging from (in summary) advice on conduct, a written warning, and extension of the introductory tenancy”. It acknowledged that the incident of assault was serious, but confirmed that it needed evidence from the police, and the outcome of their investigation to determine a course of action. The landlord also told the resident that the case had been allocated to an alternative officer.
The residents advocate approached the Ombudsman on 26 July 2021. This Service recognised that the resident had not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process, and on 8 November 2021 advice was given to ask the landlord to review the complaint at stage two of its process.
The residents advocate contacted the landlord on 7 December 2021 to escalate the complaint. She said that since the assault, the resident had found it difficult to cope with the situation, they had been seeking support from other agencies and were waiting for action by the landlord to bring some closure to the case. She said that she did not accept the outcome for the following reasons:
1. Only the “higher level” complaints have been addressed, yet the sheer number of “lower” complaints are a problem.
2. The incident status wasn’t escalated on the IT system to high risk, for nearly seven months, which was unacceptable.
3. The resident should have been referred to a support agency in December 2020, this was not done until February 2021.
4. Incident logs were presented to the resident in a “scrappy manner”.
5. Not all incidents were logged onto the IT system and others had insufficient information that the resident had reported.
6. The landlord took neighbour A’s word over the residents.
7. The offer of compensation did not cover one day’s loss of earnings. In addition, the effort, time, anxiety, mental torture, and long-lasting effects this had on the residents and their advocate due to neighbour A’s behaviour, which should have been addressed sooner.
8. 18 months after the situation was first reported they were still no further to achieving a resolution.
The landlord acknowledged the request to escalate the complaint on 15 December 2021, and said that it would respond by 12 January 2022. It then contacted the residents advocate on 12 January 2022 to say that due to the volume of information it would need extra time to respond and said that it would send its response by 9 February 2022.
The landlord sent its final response on 9 February 2022, it apologised for the delay and acknowledged the negative effects that the issue had on the “the lives of all the people involved”. It responded to the points that the resident had made and found that:
1. Some of the issues that the resident reported were not all deemed a statutory nuisance or a breach of the tenancy agreement; however, the landlord did regularly liaise with neighbour A and made recommendations to resolve the situation. It therefore did not uphold this part of the complaint and found that it had taken appropriate and reasonable enforcement actions given the evidence it had.
2. It had acknowledged that the incident status had not been escalated from medium to high in a timely manner in its stage one response and had apologised and recommended additional training (which was now ongoing) for its staff, to remedy this issue. This part of the complaint was upheld.
3. Also, in its stage one complaint it had found that the resident should have been referred for support sooner; however, due to human error this was not done. It apologised for this at stage one and added that the additional training should stop this from happening in future. It upheld this part of the complaint.
4. The information that was sent out to the resident could have been presented better. It apologised for this and partly upheld this part.
5. Not all incidents had been recorded on the IT system, staff training had been arranged that would improve recording incidents and this part of the complaint was partially upheld.
6. There was no evidence of bias towards the neighbour and this part was not upheld.
7. It was not necessary to increase the £250 offer of compensation and did not uphold this part of the complaint.
8. It advised that following legal advice it would not be taking action to evict neighbour A from her home; however, it was “exploring a long-term solution” the details of which were not disclosable.
9. The resident had been given conflicting information about its staff visiting neighbour A’s home (which the neighbour was not living in) it apologised for this and partially upheld this part of the complaint.
The complaint was accepted for investigation by this Service on 26 April 2022. The residents advocate said that she wanted the Ombudsman to review if the resident had been treated appropriately by the landlord, and if the level of compensation offered is appropriate to the level of distress experienced by the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

It is noted that the resident has said that the situation with neighbour A has affected their mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns about their health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Therefore, we cannot confirm the effect of the landlord’s actions or inaction on the resident’s health and the residents may wish to seek independent advice if they wish to pursue this aspect of their complaint. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation involving the neighbour caused the resident.

ASB handling

In cases of ASB or noise nuisance it is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether the ASB or noise occurred, but rather, to assess how the landlord responded to the reports made and whether its responses were in accordance with its policies and procedures and appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances. Based on the information provided, it suggests (and was confirmed by an environmental specialist) that some of the resident’s reports did not meet the threshold to be considered statutory nuisance. Consequently, it is accepted that the landlord was limited in what formal tenancy action it could take when dealing with the type of report of noise that was “close proximity living”. This was further confirmed by legal advice obtained by the landlord in December 2021.
The landlord has an incremental approach when dealing with the issues reported. It gave a verbal warning in July 2020. However, on this occasion the incident report says that a visitor to neighbour A’s property, had threatened to stab the resident, which was witnessed by an independent third party. While the landlord followed its incremental approach, this Service refers to its policy that states it could “escalate past parts of the incremental approach if the incident was so serious”. Undoubtedly, a threat to stab someone is a serious concern, and on this occasion should have warranted consideration to escalate the approach.
After issuing a verbal warning in July 2020, a written warning was sent to neighbour A on 18 August 2020 following further reports of noise. Further reports were made of noise and the smell of cannabis, the landlord discussed these with neighbour A who denied them. No further action was taken at this time, which was reasonable as the landlord did not have any corroborating evidence to support the action.
Noise monitoring equipment was installed from 1 October 2020 until 8 October 2020, which recorded incidents of noise, two of which were assessed as “distracting” and “nuisance behaviour” respectively. The landlord responded by sending a further warning letter to the neighbour. This Service notes that this was not sent until 23 November 2020. The landlord explained that this was due to workload pressures and focussing on the more serious police investigation that was going on. While the Ombudsman understands the pressures on landlords at that time (COVID-19 pandemic) this Service also considers that a delay of approximately six weeks is unreasonable, particularly when dealing with a case involving vulnerabilities and a noted risk of escalation to physical violence.
The landlord has accepted that it failed to update its system to allow the case to be graded as high risk, which would have meant an automatic referral to a JAG meeting. There were several missed opportunities to do this, and several alerts that should have made the landlord consider its approach further. These were:
1. On 15 July 2020, it was noted that it was “clear there are tensions between parties, and this has the potential to get physical – even though it would seem that the threats being made are empty threats”.
2. On 21 July 2020, concerns were noted about “everybody’s welfare” and the potential for increased issues and problems.
3. On 20 August 2020, the resident says that the “whole thing is getting out of hand” and that she was “on the verge of a breakdown” and “petrified in her own home”.
4. On 27 August 2020, the resident told the landlord that she was very ill with a health scare, and the stress was not helping.
5. On 11 October 2020, following a police call involving an altercation, the case was upgraded to high risk, despite this, the case was not referred to the JAG that sat on 3 November 2020.
6. On 14 October 2020, the resident sent a letter from their doctor, that confirmed the impact of the situation on their mental health.
7. In November 2020, the resident continued to raise concerns to the landlord, particularly complaining about noise. They tell the landlord that the situation is causing a deterioration in their mental health and having a negative impact on their work life due to sleep deprivation.
This Service is particularly concerned about the landlord not raising the risk level as the residents were undoubtedly affected by the behaviours that they were reporting, and the landlord was aware of that. By not raising the risk level it meant that the case was not referred to the JAG. Had it been, the JAG could have considered the issues in a more joined up way and supported the residents better, and indeed supported the landlord who has told this Service that it had a high workload at this time. This is evident by the delay in sending the warning letter to the neighbour in November 2020 and its failure to refer the resident for support in December 2020, which resulted in her not obtaining specialist support until February 2021, and only then because the resident’s advocate queried the status of the referral. Delays in referring the residents meant that they experienced further distress and frustration with the service that they were receiving from the landlord.
This Service notes a further delay with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to start the community trigger process. The resident said that he made three requests for a review under the process, and it was only heard after the third request. This was a further missed opportunity for the resident’s situation to be considered by partner agencies and this Service recommends that the landlord ensures that its process for referring community trigger requests and its relationship with partners is reviewed to avoid missed opportunities in future.
The resident told the landlord that he believed that he was a victim of a hate incident in October 2020 and December 2020. This was not coded as such on the IT system, which would have prompted an automatic referral to the JAG. This was a further missed opportunity for the issues to be considered using the recognised problem-solving approach.
The landlords ASB policy sets out its approach to hate incidents and hate crime and says that “it will complete the (council’s) hate incident common monitoring online form” and that “If the victim has any vulnerability, it will record this and consider referral to appropriate agency or a floating tenancy support service”. This Service has not seen any evidence to show that this happened. The landlord therefore failed to follow its own ASB policy by failing to record, investigate and refer the resident correctly when a hate incident was reported to it.
The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. Had the ASB been assessed correctly, the resident’s vulnerabilities considered properly, and the hate incident responded to in line with the landlord’s policy the resident would have undoubtedly received additional support which they told the landlord on several occasions that they needed. Unfortunately, this did not happen and the incident that the police and the landlord noted might happen, did happen in June 2021 when the resident reported that she had sustained injuries following an altercation with her neighbour.
In recognition of its failings the landlord has compensated £250 for the acknowledged failures. The compensation offered does not consider the failing to deal with the hate incident report nor does it acknowledge that consideration should have been given to escalating the incremental approach, particularly after an allegation that a visitor to the neighbour’s property had threatened actual harm on the resident. This Service considers that compensation of an additional £250 should be awarded to acknowledge the failures in this aspect of the landlords handling of the ASB case.

Complaints handling

Whilst this Service acknowledges that the resident did not comply with the landlord’s timescale in escalating his response to stage two of the complaints process, it was reasonable that the landlord allowed the escalation. When the escalation was requested (7 December 2021) the landlord committed to respond by 12 January 2022, which was 24 days later, which was reasonable considering the Christmas holiday. However, the landlord contacted the resident on 12 January 2022 to say that the response would take longer due to workload and the amount of information attached to the case. Again, this was a reasonable request, however, the landlord said that it would not complete its response until 9 February 2022, which was approximately 64 days after the resident’s initial escalation request and not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. This was an unreasonable amount of time, especially, as the landlord was aware of the distress and frustration that this situation was causing the resident and should have made every effort to respond within the stated timescales, which would have allowed the resident to approach this Service sooner.
The resident also felt that there was bias on the landlord’s part in favour of the neighbour, who was its tenant. The landlord investigated this at stage one and two of the complaints process and found no evidence of this. This Service acknowledges that proving bias can be subjective and as such is difficult to establish. However, no evidence has been provided that the landlord asked the resident to offer specific examples of bias to allow the landlord to investigate thoroughly. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence that the landlord properly investigated the issues, and as such this is a failure in the complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the residents reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling process.

Reasons

The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistake and apologising to the resident. It attempted to put things right by investigating the resident’s issue and awarding £250 compensation. However, the compensation award was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings and did not acknowledge the failure in not responding in line with policy to the report of a hate incident and not considering the option to escalate the incremental approach when a serious incident is reported.
The landlord failed to comply with its own policy therefore, there was service failure regarding its complaint handling process. The resident was undoubtedly distressed by the situation and this delay in the complaint handling meant that there was a further delay to this Service being able to investigate on his behalf. The landlord also failed to thoroughly investigate the residents reports that the landlord was biased towards neighbour A.

Orders

Within 28 days of this report, the landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this determination.
Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord to pay the resident a total of £600 which is made up of the following amounts:
1. £250 previously offered at stage one and two of the landlord’s complaints process, for the service failures acknowledged by the landlord.
2. £250 in recognition of the landlord’s failures to recognise the distress that the resident was experiencing and not escalating the case to high risk at an earlier date, which might have allowed the resident to obtain additional support earlier. Also, for its failings to deal with the resident’s report of a hate incident in line with its policy and for not considering escalating the incremental approach to ASB.
3. £100 in recognition of the service failures in the landlord’s complaint handling process.

Recommendation

Within six months of the date of this report the landlord reviews its ASB Policy paying specific attention to the incremental approach to ASB and includes training for its staff on when to escalate the process to legal action.
Within six months of this report staff are trained in GDPR specifically in connection with disclosing information relating to ASB actions.
Within 12 months of the date of this report, the landlord to consider the findings of the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints. The landlord to share the findings with relevant staff, including training where appropriate and to incorporate the findings of this report in its management of such cases in future.
Within six months of the date of this report, the landlord to review its complaint handling approaches and to consider the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (Complaint Handling Code – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) – The landlord to remove its stage 0 as this Service considers that a response time of 10 working days for an informal response is too long. The landlord to share the findings with relevant staff, including training where appropriate and to incorporate the findings of this report in its management of complaints in future.
Within six months of the date of this report, the landlord to review its community trigger process and relationship with partners to ensure that when a community trigger request is received it is administered correctly and referred to the appropriate partner agency.