Peabody Trust (202104592)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104592

Peabody Trust

31 May 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 response to:
1. The resident’s reports of ASB from a neighbour.
2. The resident’s queries regarding the allowance for the communal electricity supply.
3. The resident’s injury and the associated insurance claim.
4. The resident’s formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background and scope

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a converted flat with four bedrooms. The resident has lived in the property since April 2010.
As the property is a converted flat, the resident shares a communal front entrance door and hallway with the neighbour she has reported.
The Ombudsman is aware that there is a longstanding issue between the resident and her neighbour. In December 2020, this Service investigated a complaint from the resident about the landlord’s response to her ASB reports between 2019 and 2020. While some of the issues the resident reported in the previous case are the same nature as those reported during the period of time this investigation is considering, we will not review matters the Ombudsman has already decided on.
From the evidence provided, we have been able to establish that the complaint relates to events that occurred from February 2021. Therefore, this investigation will be focused on the landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports about the neighbour from February 2021 up to the point the complaint finalised the complaints process on 24 September 2021.

Summary of events

On 2 February 2021, the landlord’s contractor attended to repair the light switch in the communal hallway. At the time, the electricity supply for the communal area was connected to the meter within the neighbour’s flat. The resident emailed the landlord on the day, advising that her neighbour refused to turn the supply back on following the repair, leaving the hallway without light. She advised that there was an outstanding repair to an external communal light because the neighbour had previously refused access to the supply. The resident asked the landlord to inform the neighbour to turn the supply on as soon as possible.
The following day, the resident confirmed the supply was eventually turned on, after nine hours. She reported that the day before, the neighbour had recorded her on their phone and confirmed that she did not speak to the neighbour while they did so. The resident asked the landlord to advise her neighbour to stop recording her.
On 17 March 2021, following a conversation earlier in the month, the resident emailed the neighbourhood manager with concerns that her neighbour had not registered an account with the water board. She noted that the flats share the main water supply and the water board could not measure the water going to each flat. She advised that the neighbour ignored letters being sent addressed to ‘the occupant’ for their flat and left these letters in the communal hallway. The resident advised that as a result, she had been returning the letters to the water board herself to prevent the hallway being littered. The resident said that the water board informed her that it was the landlord who would need to provide the neighbours tenancy information to it. She also quoted the resident’s handbook, which indicated that the landlord would do this.
The following day, the resident submitted a complaint. This Service has not been provided with a copy or, given details of how the complaint was submitted. The landlord called the resident on 26 March to discuss the complaint. We have not been provided any notes of this conversation.
On 27 March 2021, the resident reported again that the neighbour had turned off the communal electric supply, leaving the hallway dark. The resident advised that she had previously fallen and asked the landlord to tell the neighbour to switch the supply on as it was a hazard.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 29 March 2021. It said that the complaint was related to ongoing issues with the neighbour including:
1. The neighbour was denying access for repairs.
2. The neighbour turning off the supply to the communal lighting and the impact of this on the resident’s health and safety.
3. Whether there was a possibility of the landlord installing sound monitoring equipment and completing works it previously agreed to minimise the noise transference between the flats.
The landlord advised the resident to refrain from having contact with the neighbour unless it was an emergency, to prevent any further allegations and to keep the peace. It confirmed that it would contact the neighbour about access arrangements and would also be asking them to refrain from turning off the electric supply to the communal area. The landlord explained that while sound monitoring was an option for it to install in serious cases, the local authority was responsible for it. It advised that the resident needed to continue to report noise issues to the local authority. It confirmed that in view of the cost associated with the equipment and the works it agreed to do to negate the noise transference, the installation of the equipment was not an option.
The resident responded via email on 1 April 2021, that she found the landlord had either not fully addressed her concerns or misunderstood them. She provided further information and comments on a number of the points the landlord made. This included her comments about being dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the reports her and her neighbour had made about each other. She advised that the communal lighting remained off despite the assurance the neighbour would switch the supply on. The resident advised that she wanted the landlord to take a number of actions including:
1. Inform her of any future allegations made against her so that she could respond. Also, not share any diary sheets she submits in future, to the neighbour’s support worker.
2. Install sound monitoring for six months to collect evidence of the noise she reports from the neighbour.
3. Implement an action plan and then monitor and enforce it when the neighbour does not comply.
4. Make the communal door self-locking, to address the issue of the neighbour not locking the door.
5. Move a canopy the neighbour installed in her garden, beneath her window, arrange a visit to witness the music and cannabis smoking, and inform the neighbour to stop recording her.
6. Arrange a monthly rota for the neighbour to do their share of cleaning in the communal area.
Around April 2021, the resident’s neighbour left the property for several months to go on a trip and left the communal electricity supply off. To restore the lighting in the communal hallway, the landlord connected the communal supply to the resident’s meter temporarily, on 16 April 2021, with her agreement. At the time the agreement was made, the landlord offered the resident £10 as a token payment for the lighting cost. The resident questioned if in addition to this, she would get a monthly allowance for the cost until the supply was moved from her meter. The landlord advised it was not sure how much the allowance would be and would need to check. It confirmed that it had advised the neighbourhood manager to set up a payment refund for her.
On 26 May 2021, the resident contacted the Ombudsman and informed that she had no received responses to two complaints she raised. She confirmed that one was that she responded to on 1 April 2021, and the second was in relation to the conduct of her neighbourhood manager. We contacted the landlord, who subsequently investigated a complaint at stage one about the conduct of the resident’s neighbourhood manager. It provided the response on 25 June 2021.
It explained that the resident had complained about the tone of the staff member during a discussion between them about an unexpected payment the resident received and work the landlord agreed in her home. The landlord concluded that it had spoken with the staff member and found that he did not intend for his tone to be perceived in the way it was by the resident. The landlord did not uphold the complaint but said that it apologised for the negative perception of the staff member’s tone during the conversation. It advised that it asked the neighbourhood manager to ensure he maintains professionalism at all times and to be mindful of how his tone may come across.
The following day, the resident responded and explained that her complaint was actually about the staff member’s:
1. Response to her queries regarding the allowance for running the communal electric supply.
2. Tone and repsonse to issues she raised, which she stated resulted in an injury.
The resident commented on several aspects of the landlord’s response, providing context to her complaint about the neighbourhood manger. She advised that in the absence of her neighbourhood manager, another neighbour manager had, in six weeks, taken various actions to address issues she had raised about the neighbour. This included, temporarily connecting the communal supply to the resident’s flat, addressing the access issue with the neighbour and writing up an action plan. The resident noted that she wanted the landlord to speak with her before responding and confirmed that all she wanted was a breakdown of the electricity allowance for the communal supply.
Following this, the landlord spoke to the resident about the complaint on 12 July 2021. The resident agreed that if the landlord addressed her outstanding issues, she did not wish to escalate the complaint. The landlord issued another stage one response, on 19 July 2021 to the following issues it said the resident raised when they spoke:
1. The conduct of the neighbourhood manager.
2. The resident’s water bills.
3. The communal electric supply refund policy.
4. An insurance claim.
5. A goodwill payment offered in relation to the communal electricity supply.
6. Anti-social behaviour agreement.
The landlord reiterated its response regarding the neighbourhood manager. It explained that the resident had attributed recent high water bills to the water board not being aware that the neighbour had moved in. It advised the resident to request the water board to contact the landlord so that it could confirm the neighbour’s tenancy start date. It provided the resident with the electricity refund policy and advised that it was under review and offered to send the revised version once it was finalised. It noted that it was not its policy to authorise the isolation of communal electric supplies. It explained that it mentioned this so that the resident was clear that the current arrangement was in place for the foreseeable future.
The landlord acknowledged the accident the resident reported she had in the hallway. It confirmed that when the parties spoke, it advised the resident to contact its insurance team. It asked the resident to provide further information about the goodwill payment. Regarding the reports about the neighbour, the landlord confirmed the resident had signed an ASB agreement it had drafted. It confirmed that an agreement had been drafted for the neighbour and agreed to monitor the situation but said it was not in a position to ask the neighbour to move the canopy in their garden and could only ask them to be mindful of smoking and playing loud music under the canopy. The landlord confirmed it would discuss the agreement with the neighbour when they returned from their trip.
The resident responded to the landlord on 20 July 2021, stating that the response written differed to what the parties had discussed. She asked the landlord to contact the water board directly and said that it had not answered how much allowance she would be paid for the period she was expecting to have the communal supply connected to her meter. She asked about whether the landlord had arranged the refund for the communal supply and noted that it appeared she was paying for the lighting, which she was not happy to do. She provided copies of communication she had with it in April 2021, where it offered £10.
The landlord responded on the same day and confirmed it would contact the water board and insurance team on behalf of the resident and pay the £10 offered in relation to the communal supply. The landlord also agreed to arrange for sound monitoring equipment to be installed when the neighbour returned and asked the resident to inform when they returned. It acknowledged that the resident was not happy to continue to have the communal electric supply connected to her meter long term and said it would send her the revised policy once finalised, so she could make an informed decision.
On 21 July 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord that on reflection, she wanted to escalate the complaint because she remained unhappy. She explained that the placement of the neighbour’s canopy under her window and having to contact the local authority and police about issues, was causing her anxiety. She asked whether the noise equipment agreed would be installed all over the first floor of the property. She advised that she wanted the canopy moved and for the locking of the main door to be incorporated into the ASB agreement for the neighbour to sign. The resident asked the landlord to refrain from telling her to not communicate with her neighbour as she was not harassing them. The landlord provided an acknowledgment on 22 and 26 July 2021. It advised it would contact the resident to confirm the response date.
The resident did not receive a response and contacted this Service again and we wrote to the landlord. The landlord discussed the complaint with the resident on 22 September 2021. It provided its final response on 24 September 2021.
It said that the resident would need to apply for an electricity refund herself and said that there was nothing stopping her from doing so. Regarding the reports about the neighbour, the landlord advised that it would arrange for the communal door to be looked at to see whether it can auto lock. It explained that its advice the resident did not speak to her neighbour was not to frustrate her but was said to minimise the likelihood of the dispute escalating. It noted that in the recent conversation, the resident raised concern that the neighbour’s use of marijuana was not medical, as the landlord had previously advised. The landlord informed that it had passed this onto the relevant team for review as part of the ASB agreement. In response to the resident’s concern about the canopy, it reiterated that it could not force the neighbour to move it but had asked the neighbour to be mindful. It acknowledged that the resident had notified it of the neighbour’s recent return and said it would discuss ASB agreement with them. The landlord also said that the resident had informed she had not heard back from its insurance team in relation to her claim. It asked her to forward the emails she sent so that it could chase the insurance team.
The landlord acknowledged that there had been delays in the progression of the ASB agreement actions, due to the neighbour being away for several months. It explained that its responses to the complaint at both stages had been delayed due to staff resource issues, the volume of cases it had and the volume of information it needed to review to respond to the complaint. It offered the resident £60 for the delays in the complaint process.
The resident was unhappy and responded to the landlord on 25 September 2021. As well as various comments, much of which refuted the information within the landlord’s response, the resident said she wanted:
1. The communal door to be made to auto lock, as the neighbour would not lock it.
2. The landlord to confirm if the sound monitoring equipment could be installed for six months to a year.
3. Her neighbourhood manager to stop avoiding her emails and for the landlord to consider moving her neighbour to supported housing if the reported ASB continued.
The resident referred her complaint for consideration by the Ombudsman on 6 October 2021. The resident subsequently made reports about the neighbour’s behaviour and submitted diary sheets to the landlord. In January 2022, the landlord issued an acceptable behaviour contract which the resident declined to sign. Another complaint was submitted to the landlord in January 2022 about the same complaints the resident raised between February and July 2021. In addition, the complaint included issues about events that had occured after the landlord’s final response of 24 September 2021. The complaint also included the landlord’s response to concerns the resident raised in March 2021, about fire exit from her flat.
The landlord provided a final response to the complaint on 14 October 2022. It also responded to issues that had been raised since September 2024. It offered compensation which included:
1. A total of £109.04 for the communal electrical payments.
2. £50 for the delay in providing the sound monitoring equipment it agreed.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policy and procedure

The landlord’s ASB policy explains that it will respond to reports of lower risk cases within five working days and high risk cases within one working day.
The policy states that the landlord supports the viewpoint that everyone has the right to their own chosen lifestyle providing this does not impact adversely on the quality of life of others. It advises that it not usually take action where a complaint concerns behaviour that results from differing lifestyles, or which would not generally be considered to be unreasonable.
The landlord states that it will only investigate reports of noise this where the noise is frequently excessive in volume and duration or, occurs at unreasonable hours.
The landlord considers mediation, good neighbour agreements and acceptable behaviour contracts are effective ways of reaching compromises in disputes. The procedure says that once a course of action is agreed, the case manager is to monitor the case and update the complainant accordingly.

The landlord’s response to the reports of ASB

Between February and April 2021, the resident raised issues about her neighbour and set out various actions she wanted the landlord to do to address them.
Prior to the investigation, this Service requested from the landlord, records of the resident’s reports and evidence of the actions the landlord did in response to the reports. The information the landlord has provided in the form of emails from the resident, show her reports about the neighbour’s behaviour from 2 February until 1 April 2021. The absence of reports after April 2021, correspond with the fact the neighbour left the property to go on a trip between April and September 2021.
In her correspondence dated 1 April 2021, the resident set out a number of actions she wanted the landlord to take in direct response to issues she had with her neighbour’s behaviour, such as cannabis smoking and noise nuisance. We have not been able to establish if and when, from February 2021, the reports about these specific issues were made.
The landlord’s records show that in May 2021, it drafted and issued the resident with an ASB agreement. Its decision was the appropriate action in the circumstances. It is clear that the resident and her neighbour have a longstanding dispute and that the resident has raised the same issues about her neighbour over the course of time. The agreement, as intended, provides clarity on the conduct expected of both residents’ so not to cause further friction between the two. By the time the agreement had been drafted, the neighbour was on a trip so the landlord could not have discussed this with them or have them sign this at the time. However, its agreement in its initial complaint response, to discuss the agreement with the neighbour on their return, was reasonable.
The resident notified the landlord of the neighbour’s return in September 2021. This Service is not satisfied the landlord took steps to discuss the agreement with the neighbour on their return. Furthermore, despite its policy explaining that it will monitor cases and update complainants, the landlord has provided no evidence that it provided the resident with an update on its actions to get the neighbour to sign the agreement when they returned to the property.
Prior to the ASB agreement being drafted, there is no evidence that the landlord responded to the reports the resident made between February and April 2021, within the timeframes set out in its policy. In this period, the resident reported that the neighbour:
1. Had repeatedly turned the electric supply off in the communal hallway.
2. Recorded the resident without consent.
3. Was not locking the communal door.
4. Was not contributing to the cleaning of the communal areas.
This Service acknowledges that in April 2021, the landlord temporarily connected the communal electricity supply to the resident’s meter. The decision to do so at the time was reasonable because the neighbour had disconnected the supply and left the property on a long term basis, leaving the communal hallway without lighting. It was necessary for the landlord at that time to take such action. However, the landlord had received two prior reports that the neighbour had turned the supply off. This Service has not seen that the landlord provided the urgent response or action to the reports that they would require, due to fact that there was no lighting in the communal area. There is also no indication that it took steps to raise this with the neighbour before they left in April 2021.
The landlord’s responses to the resident’s queries about the allowance for the supply after she agreed to have it connected to her meter, will be assessed separately in this report.
The landlord did not act on the resident’s report about the neighbour not contributing to the communal cleaning or offer any resolution to the matter despite this being raised as part of the resident’s complaint. The landlord has responded to this concern in its response to the subsequent complaint in October 2022. However, the fact that the landlord failed to address this earlier when it was raised in March 2021, is a failure. The landlord explained in the response of October 2022, that it could potentially include cleaning communal areas into a regular programme at a cost to the residents. It is not clear whether it has provided confirmation as to whether this is possible. Therefore, an order has been made for the landlord to confirm whether it is able to offer this with the agreement of the residents.
After initially declining the resident’s request for sound monitoring equipment in March 2021, the landlord agreed in July 2021 that it would install the equipment when the neighbour returned. It failed to deliver on its agreement within a reasonable time after the resident made it aware that the neighbour returned in September 2021. The evidence provided, shows that the equipment had still not been installed in the property in January 2022 despite the landlord in this time, receiving reports of noise from the resident between November and December 2021. In the stage two response, issued in October 2022 the landlord apologised for the delay in the provision of the equipment and offered the resident £50 compensation.
In relation to the reports concerning noise and cannabis smoking, the landlord referred the resident to the local authority and the police regarding these matters. Its policy confirms that it may investigate prolonged high level noise nuisance and substance misuse. Therefore, it should have explained to the resident what action it could take as her landlord, in addition to the third party agencies, in the event she wanted to report such matters.
When the resident queried the terms of the ASB agreement, the landlord responded explaining why it could not force the neighbour to move elsewhere in the garden. Its explanation was reasonable. It has asked the neighbour to be mindful and is unable to enforce the neighbour to move their canopy as they have the right to place it where they wish to in their own garden. It is noted that the use of cannabis is not typically allowed however, in 2019, the landlord satisfied itself that the neighbour’s use of cannabis was on a professional recommendation. It has previously explained to the resident that if she suspects inappropriate actions were taking place in respect of the cannabis smoking, they should report this.
To address the matter with the neighbour leaving the door unlocked the landlord agreed in its final response, to arrange for its repairs team to look at the door to see if there is a way of making it auto lock. While this was a reasonable proposal, it took the landlord five months to agree to look into the possibility of an auto lock after the resident requested it. When it responded it did not clarify when the resident could expect for it to review the door and provide feedback. This Service has seen in the landlord’s response of October 2022, it confirmed that it reviewed the door and found the lock met its standard. It also stated that it could not force the neighbour to double lock the door. While the landlord has stated this, it should be noted that the landlord is responsible for ensure its residents secure the property at all times.
While the landlord as part of the complaint response, agreed to take action to address the issues the resident raised, it failed to deliver on these actions until several months later. In addition to this, this Service has not seen that it responded when the reports were originally made, in its policy timeframes.

The response to the resident’s queries about the allowance for the communal electricity supply.

This Service requested the policy relating to the allowance provided for the cost of communal electricity supply from resident’s meters. The landlord has not provided this.
When the agreement was made for the supply to be run from the resident’s meter, it was informed that this would be on a temporary basis of up to seven months.
The £10 gesture of goodwill was offered and the resident questioned whether separate from this, she would get an allowance to fund the cost of running the electricity from her meter. In response, the landlord informed it would need to check this and get back to her. It also confirmed that it had asked for a payment refund to be set up although did not clarify whether this would be for the £10 it offered or a separate allowance.
The landlord did not provide the resident with the policy detailing the allowance she was entitled to, until it responded on 19 July 2021. In the final response, the landlord confirmed to the resident that she would need to apply for the allowance herself. It stated that there was nothing obstructing the resident from doing so. Its response to the complaint was dismissive of the fact that the resident had been making enquiries from April 2021 about whether she would be entitled to an allowance and if so, how much this was.
It took the landlord five months to confirm to the resident how she could get the allowance. The landlord did not recognise or offer any apology for the fact that it did not provide clarity to the resident about this at earlier stage. It is acknowledged that the policy was being reviewed at the time the query was first raised but as it had a policy to refer to when she asked in April 2021, it would have been appropriate to have forwarded this to her in the meantime.
This Service acknowledges that as part of its response of the resident’s later complaint, the landlord calculated the amount of allowance the resident was entitled to under its respective policies. In addition, it has offered the resident £100 in recognition of a delay it identified in processing the refund.
While the landlord failed to recognise the shortcomings in its response to the resident’s queries about the allowance in its final response dated September 2021, its response dated October 2022 has offered a reasonable resolution to this. It has calculated the resident’s entitlement and offered her additional compensation to reflect her time and trouble pursuing it.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s injury and the associated insurance claim.

The injury in question is relating to a fall the resident had in the communal hallway during a period when the electricity supply had been switched off. The Ombudsman’s assessment of this matter will be looking at whether the actions taken by the landlord following notification of the incident, including the information it provided to the resident, was appropriate. It is not for the Ombudsman to determine negligence or consider the insurers handling of or the outcome of any insurance claims. This is because these are matters that are better dealt with by legal proceedings.
The resident advised that the incident occurred on or around 5 February 2021. The earliest record of the injury being mentioned to the landlord was on 27 March 2021, when the resident reported that the communal lights were off a second time.
During the conversation between the parties on 12 July 2021, the landlord provided advice that the resident contact its insurance team. The email records provided, show that it promptly contacted the insurance team on the resident’s behalf at her request.
The landlord’s insurance team is independent of the landlord’s insurers and confirmed to the resident that it would pass the resident’s claim over to its insurer once the resident provided details about the incident. The resident provided the details the team requested, on 28 July 2021 but she did not receive a response and therefore raised this when discussing the stage two complaint with the landlord in September 2021.
The landlord asked for information in its stage two response so that it could chase the team, the resident provided this the following day. In the landlord’s response of October 2022, it confirms that its insurer did not receive her claim until September 2022, over a year later.
A reasonable explanation for the delay in the insurer receiving the claim has not been provided by the landlord to the resident. It is evident that this delay was contributed to by a service failure on the part of its insurance team, who failed to respond to the resident’s email on 28 July 2022.
The resident has confirmed that she pursued the claim elsewhere. Nevertheless, this Service considers there has been a service failure by the landlord’s insurance team for its failure to respond to and action within a reasonable time, the resident’s claim in July 2021.

Complaint handling

Throughout the case, the resident has complained about various issues. The landlord has not provided copies of the complaints the resident raised to it or contemporaneous notes from calls it had with the resident about the complaint.
The fact that it has been unable to provide this information is a concern. The Ombudsman expects landlords to keep full record of the complaint, including the submissions of the resident. In this case, the resident confirmed her preference of discussing the complaint over the phone and for the most part, the landlord has honoured this.
However, when the resident was provided with the landlord’s written responses, she raised concern that the written responses differ to what the parties discussed over the phone. Had the landlord maintained accurate records of its conversations with the resident, it could have referred to these to explain why it focused on the issues it investigated at each stage.
Since the landlord responded to this complaint, it has self-assessed itself against the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code most recently in March 2023. In this, it has confirmed that it retains records relating to each individual complaint in one place on its systems. While it is positive to hear that the landlord does so now, it is unfortunate that such record keeping of the complaint information is not evident in this case.
Following receipt of the initial complaint in March 2021, the landlord responded within 10 working days, its stage one response timeframe. However, in that response the landlord did not provide details as to what stage it was responding or how the resident could progress their complaint. After this Service initially contacted the landlord, it informed that it responded to the March 2021 complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction. While its policy allows for it to do so, the Ombudsman would expect that the landlord have made this clear to the resident in the response.
The landlord also did not clearly separate the complaints the resident raised. The resident raised her initial complaint in March 2021 relating to various issues raised about the neighbour and in May 2021, she raised the complaint concerning the conduct of the neighbourhood manager.
As a result of this, the landlord failed to provide a comprehensive response to the issues raised at every stage. Specifically, the resident’s email of 1 April 2021 where she cited dissatisfaction with the landlord’s initial response in March 2021, was not addressed when the landlord issued a stage one response in June 2021.
The landlord has recognised that there was a delay in the provision of the responses throughout the complaint’s procedure, it explained the reason for the delay and offered the resident £60 in recognition of this. However, considering that there were delays in the majority of its responses and the resident had to pursue the responses via the Ombudsman on more than one occasion, this Service considers that further compensation is warranted in recognition of this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s response to the reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the landlord has offered the resident reasonable redress for its response to the queries about the allowance for the communal electricity supply.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated insurance claim.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint.

Reasons

This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord responded to the issues the resident raised about her neighbour, in accordance with the timelines set out in its policy. In its complaint response, it agreed to take various actions to address the ASB issues raised by the resident and failed to follow through on these actions within a reasonable timeframe.
In its response in September 2021, the landlord failed to recognise that it did not provide an efficient response to the resident’s queries about the allowance for the communal electric supply. However, in its response to the complaint in October 2022, it confirmed the resident’s allowance entitlement amount and also offered compensation to reflect the resident’s time and trouble pursuing the matter.
There was a delay in the landlord’s insurance team actioning the resident’s claim as a result of its failure to respond to the resident in July 2021. The landlord followed up with the team as it agreed as part of the stage two repsonse. The claim was not passed to the insurer until more than 12 months after the resident provided the relevant information. The landlord has not offered any explanation for the delay nor has it apologised for the inconvenienced caused as a result of this.
The landlord has acknowledged the delays in its handling of the complaint and offered compensation for this. But the level of compensation it has offered is not reflective of the overall delays and the time and trouble the resident spent pursuing the responses.

Orders and recommendations

It is ordered that within four weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident £650 comprising:
1. £500 for its handling of the ASB reports.
2. £50 for its insurance’s team’s failure to progress the claim to the insurer in a timely manner.
3. £100 for its complaints handling, inclusive of the £60 it has already offered the resident.
Within four weeks, the landlord is to confirm to the resident whether it is able to include the cleaning of the communal parts into a regular programme at a cost to the residents. If this is possible, the landlord is to consult with the residents on this and confirm within eight weeks, whether they are both are willing to contribute toward the associated cost.
Once the landlord has complied with the above orders, it is to confirm to the Ombudsman.