Havering Council (202200548)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200548

Havering Council

30 August 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Request for sound insulation, due to noise disturbance.
3. Reports of damp and mould in the property.
4. Request for a new kitchen and bathroom.
5. Concerns about the conduct of its staff.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord in a 2 bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, but evidence seen shows that the resident and her daughter have stated that they suffer from mental health problems, and the resident has limited mobility.
The resident’s daughter lives with her as a permitted household member, and represented her throughout the complaints process. For clarity this report will refer to the resident’s representative (her daughter), as Ms D.
The different aspects of the resident’s complaint, as outlined above, were addressed by the landlord as 3 separate complaints. The complaints were running simultaneously, and there was an overlap in the actions of the landlord with regard to different aspects of the complaints. Therefore, for clarity, this report will summarise the events for each complaint separately.

Summary of events

The complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

The resident had an open ASB case in 2016, which related to ASB she reported experiencing from the neighbour living above. The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 May 2017, and said that it was closing the ASB noise nuisance case.
On 5 November 2020, Ms D contacted the landlord to make a formal complaint about the ASB the resident was experiencing, and said:
1. For 4 years she had experienced “terrible” ASB from the neighbour above;
2. The police were called on several occasions, and things escalated “3/4 weeks ago” when the police had to be called during a night of “continuous banging and [a] child leaning from the window screaming”;
3. She was unhappy that a previous ASB case was closed by the landlord. This was despite providing “noise logs” for several months, but it concluded the noise disturbance was “normal noise”;
4. The noise “experienced on a daily basis” was not normal noise, as her neighbours “continuously” slammed doors and cupboards and ran the washing machine until 10.45 pm;
5. She wanted the neighbour to be evicted by the landlord.
Ms D emailed the landlord on 6 November 2020 and said that both she and the resident experienced the noise disturbance, but the “aggression” from the neighbour was directed at her.
The landlord emailed Ms D on 9 November 2020 to acknowledge her stage 1 complaint, and said it would issue its response within 10 working days. It said that it had spoken to the resident about the ASB and decided some actions. Ms D emailed the landlord on same day and said:
1. She wanted the landlord to discuss concerns about ASB with her, as she was the one who raised the complaint;
2. She was concerned at the lack of action the landlord was taking about the ASB, and issues reported in the past were never “logged on the system”;
The landlord emailed the resident on 10 November 2020 and said:
1. It planned to visit the property to collect incident diaries and make an ‘action plan’ with the resident;
2. It had checked its records and no incidents of ASB were logged after 2016, and the ASB case was closed in 2017;
3. It wanted to assure the resident that all incidents she reported would be logged;
4. At a recent visit, the resident had reported that “things had been fine for a while”, but in the last month it had “got out of hand”.
Ms D emailed the landlord on 15 November 2020 and said:
1. She had sent recordings of noise disturbance that had occurred at the weekend. She said the neighbour had come home late at night and was creating an “obscene amount of noise”, and she had called the police to attend.
2. After the police had left, the neighbour started making a lot of noise, as “retaliation” for her calling the police. She advised that the recording showed the neighbour making threats to Ms D and the resident. The police had said she could consider installing her own CCTV at the property, and asked if the landlord would allow this.
3. She was unhappy with how the recent meeting with the landlord had gone and felt it was not taking her concerns about ASB seriously. Ms D said the resident was “inconsolable” after the incident, and that they were both “fearing for [their] lives”.
4. The ongoing situation was affecting her and the resident’s mental health.
The landlord emailed Ms D on 16 November 2020 and asked her to provide crime reference numbers for the incidents reported over the weekend. The landlord said that it was passing the case on to its ‘ASB officer’, due to threats being made. It said that the resident had declined its offer of noise monitoring equipment, and it had made an action plan with the resident, which said:
1. The resident would provide incident diaries to the landlord;
2. The landlord would send ‘impact letters’ to neighbours;
3. The landlord would contact the alleged perpetrator to discuss the noise nuisance, within 3 days;
4. The landlord would arrange for a ‘maintenance surveyor’ to inspect the structure of the property, as the resident had raised a concern about sound insulation;
Ms D emailed the landlord on the same day and said she was concerned about its comment about recording equipment. She said that she had declined noise monitoring equipment because the landlord said that it was not currently installing it, and she could not “wait” for this to happen. Ms D said that she also had concerns about the resident’s ability to use it, due to her limited mobility. Ms D asked the landlord to clarify its position about installing her own CCTV.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 19 November 2020 and said:
1. It would not investigate the historic ASB, because it only investigated complaints raised within 12 months of an issue occurring. It would address its handling of reports of ASB made within the last 12 months.
2. It had acted “promptly” when it received the reports of ASB, and opened an ASB case within 48 hours of the resident making her recent report. It then agreed an action plan with her;
3. It had raised a “priority 1” ASB case, and passed it to its specialist ASB officer, who was now dealing with her case;
4. It could not evict the neighbour, as she had asked, as it needed to collate evidence against perpetrators of ASB. It said that it had only just started this process;
5. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint, as it had found no failures in its handling of the ASB case;
6. It advised the resident that the case remained open for investigation.
Ms D contacted the landlord on 19 November 2020 and asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the complaints procedure, and said:
1. She was happy with the response from the landlord’s ASB officer, which was prompt, and her concern was not about the service he was providing;
2. She was unhappy that incidents of ASB, reported between 2017 and 2019, had not been recorded by the landlord, which she claimed had been “every couple of months”;
3. She was concerned that the alleged perpetrator of ASB had not been contacted by the landlord.
The landlord emailed Ms D on 3 December 2020 and said that the recordings she had provided in relation to noise were not deemed “deliberate or excessive” and amounted to “general living noise”. Ms D replied on 9 December 2020 and asked the landlord to close the ASB case, as it had found the noise disturbance to be general living noise. The landlord responded on the same day and confirmed it had closed the ASB case, as per Ms D’s request.
Ms D emailed the landlord on 2 January 2021 and asked for an update on the complaint, as she has not received a response. The landlord responded on 4 January 2021 that it had sent the resident an email on 24 December 2020 to say that her complaint had “not yet been assigned”. It said that it had not yet started its investigation, and it would let her know once the complaint had been assigned.
Ms D responded on 25 January 2021 and said that she found the delay “unacceptable”. She stated that, during the delay, she and the resident were experiencing “daily disturbances” from her neighbour and it was affecting their mental health. The landlord responded on 28 January 2021 and said the resident’s complaint would be allocated when it was “next in the queue”. The landlord included information on how the resident could contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), and said she could ask it to consider her complaints. Ms D responded on 1 February 2021 and said she had been told by the LGSCO that it did not deal with housing related issues, and had been signposted to this Service. She said that she was told this Service would only consider her complaint once she had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
Ms D contacted the landlord on 9 February 2021 and said that she was disappointed that a tenancy officer had not been in contact, after it closed the ASB case. She stated that the ASB officer had issued 1 warning letter to the neighbour and then concluded the noise disturbance was “general noise”. She said that she was then advised the case would be dealt with by a different “department”. Ms D said the issues were still ongoing and she had no contact from the landlord about the ASB issues.
The landlord emailed Ms D on 11 February 2021 and said:
1. Following reports of threats to the resident it had opened an ASB case, and issued a warning to the neighbour on 18 November 2020;
2. The recordings submitted by the resident were “deemed general living noise”, and the case was closed on 10 December 2020, as the resident had said she did not want to consider mediation;
3. It contacted her again on 13 January 2021, and was told that the resident did not need any further assistance relating to ASB;
4. It would reopen the ASB case if evidence was supplied that amounted to more than general living noise, or the resident decided that she did want a referral to mediation.
Ms D emailed the landlord on 16 and 23 February 2021 and asked for an update as she had not received a response to her stage 2 complaint. The landlord responded on 2 March 2021 and advised its investigation was ongoing. Ms D contacted the landlord again on 30 March 2021 and said it had been 5 weeks since she had received a stage 2 acknowledgement. The landlord responded on 1 April 2021 that it had not yet completed its investigations into her complaints and apologised for the delay.
Ms D contacted the landlord on 29 April 2021 and said it had been “another 4 weeks” since she had heard anything regarding her complaints. She said the delay was “frustrating”, as the issues were still ongoing. Ms D contacted the landlord’s legal services department on 14 May 2021 and said she was being “ignored” and she had been unable to go to the Ombudsman because she had not received final responses to the complaints.
The landlord emailed Ms D on 21 May 2021 and apologised for the delay in providing an update in relation to her complaints. It said that due to the “amount of correspondence” on each complaint, it was taking longer than expected to complete its investigation. It said that it hoped to issue a response within “the next couple of weeks” and expressed its “sincere apologies” for the delay.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 23 June 2021 and said:
1. It was satisfied the response it gave in its stage 1 response, regarding the closed ASB case from 2017, was appropriate;
2. It had no records of the resident reporting ASB between May 2017 and November 2020. Due to a “lack of resource” it was unable to record or store phone calls, so it could not review call recordings.
3. The reports and recordings supplied by the resident were deemed enough for it to take the “appropriate action” against the neighbour;
4. After the initial monitoring period it decided to close the ASB case, as the noise disturbance was assessed as “general living” noise;
5. It had identified no failures in its handling of the ASB case;
6. It apologised for the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint, and offered £50 in compensation in recognition of the delay.
Ms D contacted this Service on 23 July 2021 and said that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to the stage 2 complaint about ASB. Ms D said that she disagreed with the landlord’s assessment that the noise disturbance was “general living” noise, and it was not taking the appropriate action in relation to the ASB.

The complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for sound insulation due to noise disturbance, and repairs.

On 16 November 2021, the landlord shared its ASB ‘action plan’ with the resident. One of its actions was to arrange for a maintenance surveyor to inspect the structure of the property, due to the resident’s concern about a lack of sound insulation.
The landlord arranged for an operative to inspect the property on 7 December 2020, and its internal communications said that the ceiling “sounded quite hollow” and the resident could hear “every little noise” from the flat above.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 December 2020, and asked it for an update from the operative who did the inspection. The landlord emailed the operative who conducted the inspection on the same day, and asked him to provide an update direct to the resident. The email stated that the resident was of the view that she would receive the outcome of the inspection in writing.
Ms D contacted the landlord again on 21 December 2020, stating that the resident wanted to make a complaint about her request for sound insulation and said:
1. The operative who visited the property on 7 December said that “nothing was able to be done” in the property above, but said it may be able to do something in the resident’s property;
2. The operative had later contacted the resident and told her “nothing” could be done about installing sound insulation, due to the electrics;
3. She asked for sound insulation to be provided, as she believed it to be a “defect” with the property;
4. There was “excessive damp and mould” in the front bedroom and kitchen;
5. She asked for an email outlining its findings from the inspection.
The landlord emailed Ms D on 24 December 2020 to acknowledge her stage 1 complaint and said it would issue its response within 10 working days. The landlord contacted the resident on 11 January 2021 to discuss her concerns about damp and mould, and she said she did not “have any issues with damp and mould”. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to Ms D on 11 January 2021 and said:
1. It was unable to do anything to her ceiling to reduce noise from the property above;
2. Its operative had visited her property on 7 December 2020 to inspect the ceiling and advised her that there was “nothing wrong with the insulation”, so the landlord would not do any works;
3. She had advised the landlord that she had “no issues” with damp and mould and that no repairs were needed at her property;
4. It did not uphold her complaint and advised her to contact the landlord’s ASB officer about issues of noise disturbance from the property above;
5. It apologised for any inconvenience caused in relation to the matter.
Ms D emailed the landlord on 12 January 2021 and asked the complaint to be escalated to a stage 2 complaint, and said:
1. Its version of the advice given by the landlord’s operative at the visit was inaccurate, as the operative had said perhaps something could be done about sound insulation;
2. It had not followed the resident’s request that all matters should be raised with Ms D, as the resident was “not in a fit state” to have such conversations;
3. She had asked to be sent a letter about the findings of the visit, and was told by the operative that he couldn’t because he was “working from home”;
4. She asked for a formal letter outlining the findings of the visit, and how the landlord decided no insulation was needed;
5. The mould in the bedroom was affecting the resident’s health, and it kept coming back despite her cleaning it off;
The landlord emailed Ms D on 15 January 2021, and asked her to accept the email as its acknowledgment of the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It said that it was unable to provide a response timeframe, due to its “high workload and the demands of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic.” It said that it would notify her when it started its stage 2 complaint investigation. Ms D emailed the landlord on 25 January 2021 and said that she was dissatisfied that it had still not assigned the stage 2 complaint for investigation. The landlord responded on 28 January 2021 and said that the resident had a “number” of stage 2 complaints awaiting investigation, and each would be dealt with in order of the date of receipt.
On 8 February 2021 a surveyor for the landlord emailed its ‘capital projects team’ and said he had inspected the resident’s property due to concerns about damp and mould. The email stated that the mould was “not being helped” by the fact the kitchen and bathroom were in “desperate need” of updating and had no mechanical extractor fans. The team responded the same day and confirmed that the resident’s property was on the 2021-22 kitchen and bathroom programme, but it was unable to confirm an exact date. The surveyor recommended raising a works order to complete interim works as an ‘urgent case’ to make repairs to the ceiling.
The landlord emailed Ms D on 23 February 2021 and said that it had started its stage 2 complaint investigation. Ms D responded on the same day with further information for the complaint, and said:
1. She had been recently been told that nothing could be done “within budget” to install sound insulation;
2. It had not logged any of the resident’s reports of damp and mould since 2016, when a new front door was fitted, which she believed to be the source of the problem;
3. She had been told by a staff member of the landlord that not all calls or home visits were logged;
4. As a result of the damp and mould, her clothes had been damaged, and she asked for reimbursement of 75% of the cost of new clothes;
5. The resident had been waiting “over 5 years” for a new kitchen and bathroom to be fitted;
6. She asked for confirmation that the new kitchen and bathroom would be installed in 2021-22, as she had been told by an operative.
The landlord’s repair log shows that it completed repairs to the resident’s property in relation to her concerns about damp and mould, between March 2021 and May 2021, which were:
1. On 5 March 2021 it completed a “mould wash” to the bedroom wall;
2. On 30 March 2021 it took down the plasterboard ceiling in the kitchen, replaced it, and then replastered;
3. On 15 April 2021 it redecorated the repaired ceiling;
4. On 20 May 2021 it repainted the walls in the kitchen.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 24 June 2021 and said:
1. Sound insulation in the ceiling of a property was not something the landlord would offer on an individual basis;
2. Its inspection of 7 December 2020 found the ceiling to be of “standard construction” and met current building regulations. It found that the noise disturbance was caused by possible ASB, and not a defect;
3. Its operative who did the survey did not draft an inspection report and tests were not required to determine the construction of the ceiling;
4. The findings of the survey would have been confirmed in writing, “had they been requested”;
5. It outlined the decoration works and mould wash it had completed at the resident’s property;
6. It would not compensate the resident for damage to her clothing, and said it was “not liable” for such claims. It advised any claim for compensation would need to be made to the resident’s home contents insurers;
7. It would fit a new kitchen and bathroom as part of its programme for 2021-22, and its contractors would be in touch to complete an asbestos survey. Its contractor would then arrange an appointment to measure up and for the resident to “choose colours”;
8. It expected the refurbishment works to start at the end of the financial year, but the programme was running behind schedule due to “delays caused by the Covid-19 pandemic”;
9. It would ensure the results of site visits were put in writing to the resident in the future;
10. It apologised for the delay in issuing its stage 2 complaint response and offered the resident £50 in compensation in recognition of the delay.
Ms D contacted this Service on 23 July 2021 and said that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. Ms D said that the landlord had not addressed her concerns about damp and mould, and she was unhappy with its decision not to install sound insulation in the ceiling of the property.

The complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern about the conduct of its staff

The landlord visited the resident’s property to discuss a report of ASB on 13 November 2020, and agreed an action plan. Ms D emailed the landlord on 16 November 2020 and said:
1. Following a conversation “moments ago” she no longer wanted the officer dealing with her case to be involved;
2. The officer had “raised [her] voice several times” during the phone call;
3. At a recent home visit, the officer was not empathetic towards the resident and herself. She said the officer had emitted “constant little giggles” when the resident and Ms D were discussing their mental health problems;
On 18 November 2020, Ms D emailed the landlord to make a complaint about the conduct of the landlord’s member of staff, and said:
1. The officer in question had shown a “lack of respect” and had been “mocking” the mental health problems of the resident and Ms D;
2. The officer “shouted over” Ms D during a phone call;
3. She had been given conflicting information about whether phone calls to the landlord were recorded.
The landlord emailed Ms D on 18 November 2020 to acknowledge her stage 1 complaint, and said it would respond within 10 working days. It sent its stage 1 complaint response on 8 December 2020 and said:
1. Its officer had responded in the expected timeframes after Ms D had reported an incident of ASB;
2. Its officer had told Ms D, in a phone call on 9 November 2020, that she was not a joint tenant, and it understood this news was upsetting for her;
3. As calls were not recorded it was “difficult to establish” who initiated raised voices, and it apologised if Ms D “felt that [the officer’s] voice was raised”;
4. The officer had advised calls were recorded, by which she meant all received calls were “logged” and notes made on its system. It apologised for any misunderstanding about the matter;
5. It was in agreement that the officer should have reconfirmed the appointment of 13 November 2020 earlier than the morning of the appointment;
6. The officer in question had been asked about the home visit and had said “she did not laugh and would certainly not mock anyone in regards to any mental health issues”. The officer had reported that she felt the meeting had gone well;
7. The officer said that she did make a comment “regarding the [e]ffect situations can have on her own mental health”. She did not intend to be offensive or make Ms D feel like she was being mocked, but was attempting to “lighten” the situation;
8. It partially upheld the complaint, and said it was unable to agree the officer acted unprofessionally, but the officer could have been more sensitive to the resident’s and Ms D’s situation.
Ms D contacted the landlord on 8 December 2020 and said she was dissatisfied with its stage 1 complaint response. She asked for the complaint to be considered as a stage 2 complaint, and said:
1. The officer in question “initiated the raising of voices”;
2. Given what was being discussed at the meeting there was no need to “lighten the situation”;
3. She disagreed with the landlord’s claim that the officer had not laughed at the meeting and said the officer “giggled throughout”;
4. She felt the matter was being “brushed aside” by the landlord, and further training of its staff was needed.
Ms D emailed the landlord on 2 January 2021 and asked for an update on the complaint, as she had not received its complaint response. The landlord responded on 4 January 2021 and said that the complaint had not yet been assigned to an investigator and it may not meet its response target. It said she would be notified of any delays in writing. The landlord’s notes for the complaint show that the complaint was assigned to an officer to investigate on 23 February 2021.
Ms D emailed the landlord on 23 February 2021 to provide more information for the stage 2 complaint and said:
1. The incident with the officer had caused her and the resident “emotional distress” and to be laughed at was “disgusting”;
2. She wanted the landlord to “expand” its staff’s knowledge of mental health;
3. She had provided an audio clip of the incident, and this has not been acknowledged by the landlord and she would like it addressed in its complaint response.
Ms D emailed the landlord on 28 February 2021 and asked for an update as she had not received a response to her email. The landlord responded on 2 March 2021, and advised its investigation was ongoing.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 17 June 2021, and said:
1. It apologised that Ms D felt she had been mocked by the officer, and apologised if the matter caused stress and anxiety. It believed it was not the officer’s intention to cause offense;
2. Without “unquestionable evidence” the incident did occur, it could not investigate the matter further;
3. It believed the officer had acted appropriately by offering a mental health referral;
4. It did not uphold the complaint about the officer’s conduct, but had made a recommendation that staff complete “mental health awareness training”;
5. It had not asked for the audio recording, as such evidence was hard to verify, but it would review the recording if the resident provided it;
6. It was not the landlord’s policy to change a resident’s housing officer, and the officer the complaint was about, would remain her housing officer;
7. It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint, and offered £50 in compensation in recognition of the delay.
Ms D contacted this Service on 23 July 2021 and said she received a response from the landlord ,on 28 June 2021, confirming that the recording had been listened to and it found the officer had acted appropriately. Ms D asked this Service to investigate her complaint, as she was not happy with the landlord’s response and wanted the landlord to assign the resident a new housing officer.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord told this Service, on 24 May 2022, that it had “no policy for anti social behaviour, but conditions are part of the tenancy agreement”. Its ASB ‘booklet’ on its website states that it investigates all reports of ASB and asks its residents to keep an ‘incident log’. It states that it will issue warning letters to perpetrators of ASB, when the ASB amounts to a breach of tenancy. The ASB booklet states that it offers mediation in cases of noise nuisance.
The landlord’s ‘employee code of conduct’ policy states that its officers must “take responsibility for their conduct towards others to ensure behaviour cannot be perceived by others to be of a bullying or harassing nature”.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it classes damp and mould as a ‘routine repair’ and it will complete such repairs within 28 days. The policy states that where there is “mould growth due to condensation” it will do a “washdown” and provide the resident with advice on how to prevent a recurrence. When the reason for mould growth is unknown, such repairs are subject to an inspection. The policy states that kitchen and bathroom replacements are part of planned programmes of work.
The landlord’s complaints procedure states that it “normally” only accepts complaints that are made within 12 months of the incident that led to the complaint, unless there are exceptional circumstances that caused a delay.
The landlord operates a 3 stage complaints procedure. Its procedure states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, stage 2 complaints within 25 working days and stage 3 complaints are heard by a ‘review panel’ that will issue a response within 30 working days.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

It is evident that this situation was distressing for the resident. It is acknowledged that the resident does not consider that the landlord responded appropriately to her reports of ASB and noise disturbance. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not, but to establish whether the landlord’s response to the reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and fair in all the circumstances of the case.
Following the resident’s reports of ASB, and the resident providing crime reference numbers, the landlord referred the case to its own ASB specialist team. This was appropriate in the circumstances and is evidence that the landlord was taking the resident’s reports of ASB seriously.
The landlord visited the resident’s property and agreed an ‘action plan’ which it shared with the resident on 16 November 2021. This was appropriate in the circumstances, as it promptly visited the resident when a report of ASB was made, and agreed actions for both the resident and the landlord. It sought to manage the resident’s expectations about what it planned to do in her case, and outlined what she needed to do.
The landlord advised the resident that it had not investigated its handling of the ASB case that was closed in 2017. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances, and in line with its complaints procedure, which states it will not investigate matters more than 12 months old. It clearly explained why it would not investigate the historic ASB case, and managed the resident’s expectations by explaining what it had investigated.
When the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, it advised that it was satisfied with its handling of the ASB case up to that point. It sought to manage the resident’s expectations by explaining that the case remained open with its ASB officer, and provided his contact details. This was an open approach by the landlord. It clearly set out its position in relation to any failings in service, but sought to reassure the resident that it was progressing with her case. It encouraged her to discuss any issues of ASB with the officer leading on it.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to address the resident’s request about permission to install her own CCTV. This was a matter that directly related to the resident’s concerns about ASB, and how to manage her concern about risk. Ms D made the request on 10 November and again on 16 November 2020, shortly before the landlord issued its complaint response. It is therefore reasonable to expect the landlord to have used its complaint response to give an explanation of its position relating to the matter. This was a failing on the part of the landlord to communicate effectively about the resident’s concerns about ASB. The resident suffered an inconvenience of not knowing whether the landlord would give her permission to install CCTV at her property. She suffered the time and trouble of needing repeatedly ask the landlord it outline its position in relation to the matter.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was also silent on this matter, which was failing in its complaint handling. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to have addressed concerns that had not been addressed at stage 1, to help manage the resident’s expectations and give an answer to question she had asked. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord outlined its position relating to the resident’s request to install CCTV at her property.
The ASB officer emailed Ms D to outline its position in relation to the ASB case and its handling of it, on 11 February 2021. This was appropriate in the circumstances, as Ms D had raised a concern about its handling of the case, and the delay in issuing its complaint response. Given there were delays in opening the investigation into the stage 2 complaint, it was reasonable for the landlord to outline its position in relation to the substantive issue of the complaint. It sought to manage the resident’s expectations about the action it had taken and why it had decided to close the case. It also encouraged the resident to take up its offer of a mediation referral and advised it would reopen her case if she provided further evidence. This clarification of its position was the appropriate approach to take in the circumstances.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response sought to address the resident’s concern that reports of ASB had not been logged by the landlord. It advised it had checked its records and found no records of the resident raising any concerns about ASB during this time. The landlord took the resident’s concern seriously in checking its records. The lack of evidence of any reports, combined with the resident’s own comments that “things had been fine for a while”, led the landlord to find no failings in relation to this matter. This was a reasonable conclusion to draw in the circumstances, as it sought evidence of reports not being actioned, but could find none. Its findings were supported by the resident’s own comments about ASB.
Ms D stated that the resident had declined the landlord’s offer of noise monitoring equipment, because of the landlord’s comments about not installing it at that time. She also expressed concerns about the resident’s ability to use the equipment, due to poor mobility. It is reasonable to expect the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses to have addressed this concern. The resident evidently felt the landlord had been inconsistent in position about noise monitoring equipment. Not addressing this was a further failing in the landlord’s communication about the matters raised by the resident in relation to its handling of the ASB case.
The landlord took the resident’s reports of ASB seriously, which is evidenced by it opening a case promptly. When it assessed the noise disturbance as general living noise, it offered to refer the resident to mediation, which was a reasonable approach. It clearly explained its reasons for closing the case and advised it would reopen the case if the resident made further reports or changed her mind about mediation. However, the landlord failed to give any response to the resident’s request for permission to install her own CCTV and failed to respond to her query about noise monitoring equipment. It encouraged the resident to make further reports, but failed to engage with her on these matters. Engagement with the resident on these matters could reasonably be expected to have reduced her anxiety about ASB and noise disturbance.
In light of the identified failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and relevant orders have been made below.

Request for sound insulation

The landlord’s position in relation to the resident’s request for sound insulation was consistent throughout the complaint, as it said that it would not provide this. However, its record keeping in relation to the matter, and in particular the visit by its operative in December 2020, was poor. The resident claims that she was told at the visit that the landlord may be able to do something, but the landlord later contradicted this and said it would not install sound insulation. This Service requested notes made by the operative in attendance, but the landlord has been unable to provide them, which is evidence of poor record keeping by the landlord. The landlord has provided internal emails from December 2020, where the operative who attended the resident’s property reported internally that “there is nothing wrong with the insulation”. However, it has not provided notes taken at the visit. Therefore, this Service has not been able to determine what was said to the resident at the visit.
The landlord’s communication with the resident in relation to the matter was also poor. Following the visit on 7 December 2020, Ms D contacted the landlord on 21 December 2020 to ask for the outcome of the visit. This indicates that she was not provided with an outcome of the visit and was cost time and trouble in asking the landlord to outline its position. Internal communications for the landlord indicate that the operative who attended the resident’s property contacted Ms D on 21 December 2020. The email stated that Ms D was “told at the time” that there was “nothing wrong” with the insulation, and had called Ms D to reiterate this point.
This Service has not seen a record of the conversation between the operative and Ms D, from the visit on 7 December 2020. It is therefore not possible to determine if what Ms D was told in its follow up call on 21 December 2020, was consistent with what she was told at the visit. However, the landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations about sound insulation from that point and again in its stage 1 complaint response, and its position was consistent thereafter.
Internal emails for the landlord, seen as part of this investigation, suggest that queries raised in its own investigation went unanswered. This can reasonably be expected to have limited its ability to fully respond to the concerns raised by the resident. Its stage 1 complaint response was brief and did not address the matter in detail. It simply stated that it would not install sound insulation and there were no defects in the property. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s poor record keeping in relation to the matter limited its ability to respond to the stage 1 complaint fully, and resulted in an inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, in relation to the matter, claimed that it would have issued findings of the visit in writing “had they been requested”. This failed to acknowledge that Ms D had requested the findings from the visit in writing throughout the complaints process. It is noted that its complaint responses did formally outline its position about the matter to the resident, but it would have been reasonable to acknowledge its failing in relation to the resident’s request. The landlord did however identify learning from the outcome of the resident’s request and said that findings from future visits would be confirmed in writing to the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response stated that it did not complete a written report following the inspection of the resident’s property in December 2020. And this Service has not been provided with any evidence of notes taken at the visit. This is further evidence of poor record keeping in relation to the matter, and could reasonably be expected to have impacted on the landlord’s ability to respond to the matter appropriately.
The landlord reasonably concluded that it would not provide sound insulation to the resident, and set out the reasons for its decision clearly in its stage 2 complaint response. However its complaint response did not acknowledge its poor record keeping in relation to the matter, or offer redress to the resident for its failure to provide the outcome of the visit in writing. As such, service failure has been found in the landlord’s handling of this matter and relevant orders have been made.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould

It is noted that after it opened its stage 1 complaint about repairs, the landlord contacted the resident, on 11 January 2021, and was told that she did not have any issues with damp and mould. The discrepancy in information provided by the resident, could reasonably be expected to have delayed its response to the concerns about damp and mould in the property.
Internal emails for the landlord on 8 February 2021 show that its operative had concluded that the lack of extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen were not helping the issue of damp and mould. The operative reasonably enquired about when the new bathroom and kitchen would be installed, to help with the matter. Upon confirmation the new kitchen and bathroom would not be installed for some time, the landlord raised works to renew the ceiling and mould wash the wall, which was a reasonable interim measure.
However, from the evidence available, it does not appear the landlord did any further investigation into the cause of damp and mould, which would have been reasonable in the circumstances. Ms D had told the landlord that the issue with damp and mould started as a result of works it completed at the front of the property in 2017. It does not appear that the landlord did any further investigations into this as a possible cause, which would have been reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord appears to have relied on the lack of extraction as the cause of damp and mould. This was unreasonable considering what it had been told by Ms D, and its own operatives comments that the issue of damp and mould was “not being helped” by the lack of fans. This does not imply that he was of the view that the lack of extraction was the main cause of the issue, but a contributing factor. It is therefore reasonable to expect the landlord to have been more proactive in assessing any other possible causes of damp and mould within the property. The impact on the resident was distress, as she was living in a property with damp and mould, that she felt the landlord was not investigating appropriately.
This Service has seen no evidence that, on completion of the works and ‘mould wash’, the landlord gave the resident guidance on how to prevent a recurrence. This was a failure to properly apply its repairs procedure. The resident suffered an inconvenience as a result, as the landlord did not provide advice and guidance in line with its policies.
The landlord’s complaint response in relation to the matter was cursory, and did not address the resident’s concern about the works completed in 2017. Given this matter had been raised as part of the complaint, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have addressed the matter in its response. The result was the resident felt the landlord was not taking her concerns about damp and mould seriously, as identified in her correspondence with this Service.
The landlord appears to have been satisfied that the interim works it completed in 2021 to the resident’s property were adequate to resolve the issue, until the new kitchen and bathroom were fitted. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord followed up with the resident on the completion of the works. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to outline a timeframe within which it would check in with the resident to see if the problem was reduced/resolved. This would have been a reasonable and proactive approach and would have enabled it to act promptly if it became apparent the issue was persisting. The lack of further engagement on the matter left the resident feeling it had not fully addressed her concerns.
The landlord’s overall approach to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould was not thorough. It completed works to repair damage caused by damp and mould, but did little to investigate further. This was despite the resident raising a concern about works it had completed to the front of the property.
The resident, through Ms D, raised a concern that her belongings had been damaged by damp and mould in the property. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response stated that she would need to contact her own insurer to make a claim for damage to possessions. This was not appropriate in the circumstances, as the resident complained that her property was damaged as a result of a repair for which the landlord was responsible. As such, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have referred the resident to its own insurer, so that a decision relating to liability could have been made. Its failure to provide information about its own insurer was unfair. It failed to provide the opportunity for the resident to put her case forward, that it was responsible for the damage to her possessions, and have the claim considered. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen and bathroom

The landlord used its complaint responses to manage the resident’s expectations in relation to the matter. It confirmed that it planned to fit the new kitchen and bathroom as part of its programme of works for the 2021-22 financial year. This addressed the request made as part of the resident’s complaint. It sought to manage the resident’s expectations further, by explaining that it hoped to complete the works towards the end of the year, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord provided further explanation about the delays it had experienced due to the Covid-19 pandemic. This is further evidence that the landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations in relation to the matter.
The landlord used its complaint response to provide an explanation about the process and what the resident needed to do at each stage. It explained the process with clarity, which could reasonably be expected to have addressed the resident’s concerns in relation to the matter. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen and bathroom.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff

This Service does not seek to dispute Ms D’s version of events in relation to this matter, which she and the resident evidently found distressing. However, it is not the role of this Service to determine whether the incident occurred as alleged. Rather, this Service can consider whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s concern about the conduct of its staff.
When Ms D first raised a concern about the conduct of its staff, the landlord took the concern seriously and opened a separate complaint investigation. As part of its investigation it considered the concerns raised by Ms D, and also interviewed the member of staff in question. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint handling Code (the Code), which states that when a complaint is made about a landlord’s member of staff they must be given a “fair chance to set out their position”. This was a fair and balanced approach by the landlord.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, sent on 8 December 2020, lacked clarity. It stated that the conduct of the officer in question was not unprofessional, but also admitted that her comments could have been more sensitive. Given the impact Ms D had told it the incident had on her and the resident, its response lacked empathy. By admitting the comments of the staff member were insensitive, but finding her to have acted professionally, indicates that the landlord did not fully consider the impact of the admitted lack of sensitivity had. The landlord failed to consider the impact on someone who was experiencing poor mental health, and this amounted to a failing.
The landlord’s complaint response stated that the comments made by the officer were an attempt to lighten the mood. This is a further indication that the landlord failed to fully consider the impact on the resident. The impact of this statement is clear from Ms D’s comments that the attempt to lighten the mood was inappropriate, given the topic of discussion. The landlord appropriately investigated the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff. However, its stage 1 complaint response failed to consider the impact of the perceived insensitivities, and the light hearted approach of its officer. The result was that the resident felt the landlord was not taking her concern seriously, despite being told that the incident had caused distress.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response acknowledged that its officer had lacked sensitivity and not communicated effectively about an appointment. It did not outline what learning it had done from its handling of the matter, which was a failing. It would also have been reasonable for it to offer some form of redress to the resident in its complaint response. It is not clear why, when it admitted a failing, that the landlord did not offer the resident compensation to acknowledge the detriment she experienced.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, issued on 17 June 2021, apologised for any offense caused by the conduct of its staff member. This was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances. The complaint response appropriately made a recommendation for its staff to go on mental health awareness training. This was reasonable given it had identified the staff member, unintentionally, was insensitive and had caused offense. This approach showed that the landlord applied the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of ‘learning from outcomes’ in relation to this matter.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not offer the resident any redress, despite identifying a training need for staff. As it believed its service fell short of the standard it expected, it would have been reasonable for the landlord offer the resident some form of redress in recognition of the distress caused by the officer’s insensitivity and the unintentional offense caused.
On 23 February 2021, Ms D asked the landlord to consider a recording she had supplied as part of the stage 2 complaint. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response appears to suggest that it had not received the recording and said it would review it if it was provided. Ms D had asked it to consider the evidence as part of the stage 2 complaint, it would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered this evidence before issuing its response. It could have then used its complaint response to outline its position in relation to the evidence provided. The result was an inconvenience to the resident, as the complaint response she received did not address in any detail evidence she felt was important to her complaint.
It is noted that Ms D confirmed the landlord listened to the recording and found no failings as a result. By stating its position about the recording after the complaint response was issued, the resident suffered further inconvenience. This was due to having to wait for the landlord to issue a response to a matter she felt critical to her complaint about staff conduct.
The landlord took the resident’s concerns about staff conduct seriously and investigated the matter. It identified failings in communication and the sensitivity in which the resident’s mental health was dealt with. It reasonably identified a training need for staff, but it failed to offer any redress to the resident, despite being aware of the distress the incident had caused. As such, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter and relevant orders have been made below in relation to the landlord’ handling of the matter.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints

The resident raised multiple complaints with the landlord about different substantive issues. Having a large volume of complaint communications from the resident may have contributed to the difficulties in the landlord’s complaint handing. However, its overall complaint handling was poor in terms of its communication with the resident and lengthy delays at stage 2 of each of her complaints.
The landlord’s complaints procedure, at the time of the resident’s complaint, was not compliant with the Code. Its procedure states that it will issue stage 2 complaint responses within 25 working days, whereas the Code states stage 2 complaint responses should be sent within 20 working days. The Code also states that 2 stage complaints procedures are ideal to ensure it is not unduly long. If the landlord does have a 3 stage procedure, it must set out its reasons for doing so in its self assessment.
It is noted that in this case, the landlord effectively operated a stage 2 complaint procedure when dealing with the resident’s complaints. However, the self assessment available on the landlord’s website does not given an explanation of why it operates a 3 stage complaint procedure. This is not compliant with the Code, and relevant orders have been made below.
The Code also states that where there is a delay at stage 2 of the complaints procedure, and an “extension beyond 10 working days is required[…]this should be agreed by both parties”. The landlord did not provide a timeframe in which it would respond to any of the resident’s stage 2 complaints. It did not attempt to agree an extension with the resident, or give indicative timeframes on when it hoped to respond. This was poor complaint handling by the landlord, which failed to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations. This open ended approach to the stage 2 complaints was unfair and caused further detriment to the resident.
In its handling of the resident’s ASB complaint it informed Ms D, on 4 January 2021, that it had not yet assigned the complaint for an officer to investigate. It did not give any timeframe on when it hoped to assign the case, which would have been reasonable in the circumstances. The resident had already experienced a protracted complaints process in relation to her ASB complaint. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to seek to manage her expectations about how much more of a delay she was likely to experience. The resident experienced the inconvenience of a protracted complaints process which was made worse by the time and trouble she experienced in needing to ask the landlord for updates on the progress of her complaint, due to it not providing proactive updates of its own.
During the ASB complaint the landlord, incorrectly, advised the resident she could seek assistance from the LGSCO. It is reasonable to expect the landlord’s complaint handling staff to signpost residents to the correct Ombudsman. The resident suffered an inconvenience as a result of being given incorrect advice by the landlord.
As outlined earlier in this report, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response about repairs was cursory. It did not give any detail about why it had come to the position it had, and simply stated that its operative had given the correct advice. It is not unreasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of an expert. However, it is reasonable to expect the landlord’s complaint response to give thorough explanations of its position in relation to a matter the resident had raised a concern about. This was poor complaint handling by the landlord and the result was an inconvenience. Its response gave little explanation that directly addressed the resident’s concerns.
When the landlord told the resident it had started its stage 2 investigation into her repairs complaint, on 23 February 2021, it did not give a timeframe of when it hoped to respond. This is further evidence of a protracted complaints process for the resident, and failure to manage her expectations about the delays. The result was further inconvenience, time and trouble on the part of the resident.
The evidence seen as part of this investigation, indicates that the landlord was not proactive in providing updates about the delays with her complaints. It is noted that the landlord did acknowledge and apologise for the delays, but as outlined above it did little to try and manage the resident’s expectations.
The resident experienced further time and trouble, as she contacted the landlord’s legal department saying that she felt “ignored”. It is evident the resident found the complaints process distressing due to the delays, and she felt the landlord was not taking her complaints seriously.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord 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.
In each of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint responses it apologised for the length of delay and offered £50 in compensation to acknowledge the delay. The delays at stage 2 were as follows:
1. The stage 2 complaint response to the resident’s complaint about ASB was sent 147 working days after the resident’s escalation request.
2. The stage 2 complaint response to the resident’s complaint about sound insulation and repairs was sent 114 working days after the resident’s escalation request.
3. The stage 2 complaint response to the resident’s complaint about staff conduct was sent 144 working days after the resident’s escalation request.
It is noted that this sum was offered for differing periods of delay. This indicates that, rather than giving due consideration to its compensation guidance and the individual circumstances of the complaint, the landlord may have fettered its discretion. It applied a set level of compensation for delays at stage 2 in 3 separate complaints. The landlord’s offer of £150, in total, for its complaint handling did not fully put things right for the resident. The landlord’s complaint responses failed to identify what learning it had done from the delays. It would have been reasonable to so, and been in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of learning from outcomes.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for sound insulation, due to noise disturbance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen and bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern about the conduct of its staff.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

The landlord took the resident’s reports of ASB seriously, and when it closed the case it sought to manage her expectations and explain why. The landlord failed to address matters that related to her reports of ASB (request for CCTV and query about noise monitoring equipment) in its complaint responses, which would have further supported the resident with her case.
The landlord’s record keeping in relation to the sound insulation request was poor, in particular around the inspection it completed in December 2020. It used its complaint procedure to reasonably outline its position, but failed to acknowledge its poor record keeping or its failure to abide by the resident’s request for outcomes to be communicated in writing.
The landlord’s overall approach to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould was cursory. It completed works to repair damage caused by damp and mould, but did little to investigate further. This was despite the resident raising a concern about works it had completed to the front of the property. It also failed to provide advice and guidance about damp and mould in line with its repairs policy, and how the resident could make a claim on its insurance for damage to her possessions.
The landlord clearly outlined its position in relation to the new kitchen and bathroom. It explained the process, and gave an indicative timeframe of when it hoped to complete the works. It sought to manage the resident’s expectations about delays, and what she needed to do as part of the process.
The landlord investigated concerns about staff conduct and took the claim seriously. It identified failings in communication with the resident, and assessed the officer’s actions as lacking in sensitivity. It reasonably identified a training need for staff, but failed to offer any redress to the resident, despite accepting failings in communication, and being aware of the distress the incident had caused her.
There were lengthy delays in the landlord’s complaint handling at stage 2, and the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations by giving timeframes of when it hoped to respond. Some of the landlord’s complaint responses were cursory and failed to address the substantive issues the resident had raised. The amount of compensation it offered failed to fully put things right for the resident.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report;
2. Pay the resident £1,500 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB;
  2. £100 for the inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s request for sound insulation;
  3. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould;
  4. £250 for the distress, time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff;
  5. £150 it already offered for its complaint handling;
  6. A further £600 in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of each of the resident’s complaints.
3. If it has not already done so, respond to the resident’s request for permission to install her own CCTV, outlining its position and the reasons for this;
4. The landlord should assign a member of staff with the appropriate expertise to inspect the resident’s property in relation to damp and mould. It should identify any works that are needed, in line with its repairs obligations;
5. The landlord should provide the relevant details about how the resident can make a claim on its insurance.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Review its handling of the resident’s complaints and identify points of learning on how it can improve its complaint handling and reduce delays. The findings should be shared with the Ombudsman, also within 8 weeks;
2. Carry out a Code self-assessment, if this has not been completed within the last year. Further information on this can be found on the Ombudsman’s website (Complaint Handling Code – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk);
3. Conduct training with its complaint handling staff, with a particular focus on:
  1. Understanding and showing empathy for the impact on a resident in its complaint responses;
  2. The remits of the Housing Ombudsman Service and the LGSCO;
  3. The importance of managing a resident’s expectations when there are delays in responding to complaints.