Islington Council (202206179)

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206179

Islington Council

3 July 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 water ingress from the balcony and within the property.
2. the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), particularly noise transference.
3. the resident’s complaint and request for compensation due to stress, inconvenience, and service failure.
This investigation and report also considers the landlord’s:
1. proactive engagement with external agencies in response to the resident’s welfare needs.
2. management of information and record keeping practices.

Background

The resident lives in a three-bedroom ground floor flat in a housing block which was let by Islington Council on 26 April 1993.
The resident’s reports of noise transference relate to noise from family occupied properties on the first and second floors directly above the resident.
This Service investigated a previous complaint related to noise transference. A determination was issued in respect of this in April 2021. This report however considers noise transference and associated factors subsequent to that determination.
The resident downloaded a mobile phone noise recording app in January 2020, prior to the matters addressed in this investigation and upon the landlord’s suggestion for recording noise nuisance.

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s obligations under the terms of the secure tenancy are to:
1. “keep in good repair the drains, gutters, outside pipes,”
2. take reasonable care to keep the common parts in a reasonable state of repair.”
The tenant’s obligations under the terms of the secure tenancy are to:
1. “notify the council about any defects which should be repaired,”
2. not cause any nuisance, annoyance, or disturbance to neighbours.
The landlord’s corporate complaints policy states it operates a three-stage complaint procedure. Stage two is referred to as a Chief Executive review stage.
1. Stage one complaints and stage one complaint review requests are acknowledged within 3 calendar days and a response is issued within 21 calendar days.
2. Stage two review requests are acknowledged within 3 calendar days and responded issued within 28 calendar days.
The landlord’s repair policy states:
1. urgent repairs which affect a tenant’s day-to-day living will be repaired within 24 hours,
2. routine repairs which cover non-urgent repairs will be repaired within 20 working days,
3. planned repairs which cover high value, which are complicated to completed will be repaired within 60 working days.
The landlord’s ASB policy defines what it considers to be antisocial behaviour and harassment. This includes:
1. noise nuisance – excessive noise,
2. drug, or alcohol misuse,
3. driving vehicles recklessly or dangerously,
The landlord’s ASB policy states:
1. Harassment is deliberate action designed to intimidate or offend as well as cause fear and distress to victims. It differs from antisocial behaviour in that it is deliberate and targeted victimisation of groups or individuals.
2. “One of the key drivers in addressing antisocial behaviour lies with the advent of partnership working. The council recognises the importance of developing and maintaining strong working relationships with agencies and services.”
The landlord’s ASB policy states that for residents “with support needs that may cause incidents of ASB,” the landlord “will refer them to our own in-house support officer, or other appropriate floating support agencies. This will be to provide support to challenge and change unacceptable behaviour and to support the means of tenancy sustainment by stopping such unacceptable behaviour.”
The landlord’s ASB procedure states that staff receiving a report of ASB:
1. will be expected to decide whether it is a serious case of ASB or harassment,
2. will take a victim-centred approach to enable victims to have confidence in reporting incidents,
3. complete an initial reporting form where further investigatory action is required and send it to the relevant ASB officer for an ASB case to be opened on the landlord’s housing database,
The ASB procedure details some steps that the reporting party may wish to take. These include – speaking to the neighbour, keeping an ASB diary, collecting evidence, agreeing to install noise recording equipment.
Within its ASB procedure the landlord also states that the names and addresses of any witnesses or neighbours who may be affected should be obtained during the initial interview with the reporting person. The procedure also references an ‘appeal for witnesses standard letter’ which is used to “write to all residents within a block of flats encouraging them to come forward with any information they have.”
The landlord’s ‘ASB and vulnerable residents guidance note’ summarises the protocol with Housing and Adult Services:
1. An ASB officer must check all residents and (alleged) perpetrators for any vulnerability information. If there is information and it is more than two years old, the officer should complete a diversity monitoring form.
2. If a potentially vulnerable person is identified and it is believed this may be contributing to problems around their tenancy, a referral to housing support should be made. The officer should ascertain if the person is known to social services. If they are, a case conference should be arranged.
3. If the individual is not known to social services, but there are significant issues around vulnerability, a referral should be made and recorded on file.
4. Where a person is known to social services, or a referral accepted a joint visit or office interview should take place within 10 working days of the request. An action plan will be agreed between all parties and the situation monitored.
The landlord’s compensation procedures set out compensation awards of:
1. £25 per month for delays in complaint handling,
2. between £100 and £300 up to £1000 for distress related to complaint handling,
3. between £100 and £300 for time and trouble related to complaint handling,
4. between £500 and £2000 (pro-rata per annum) for delays tackling neighbour nuisance.

Summary of events

On 17 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord about “cannabis pollution”. The resident stated the landlord must take action and stated [the neighbour] had been cautioned twice by the police.
The landlord contacted the resident’s neighbour on 17 May 2021 to address reports of drug taking it had received. The neighbour denied the allegations but was reminded that drug taking is unacceptable. The landlord subsequently contacted the police who confirmed no evidence of drug use was found at the neighbours property.
The landlord raised a works order on 18 May 2021 for a roofer to inspect and rectify a flat roof leak that affected the resident’s kitchen. This Service has not seen evidence to confirm when or how the leak was reported to the landlord.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 18 and 24 May 2021 stating the neighbours “continue to purposely drag, slide, scrape their chairs all over my ceiling creating, deep screeching noises that continue to cause an unnecessary nuisance”. The landlord replied to the resident’s email the same day asking the recipient to provide their address.
The landlord attended the residents property on 26 May 2021 and identified cracks to the asphalt surface on the property balcony and to the upstands. No leaks were found from the balcony outlet, but an asphalt repair was recommended. A subsequent works order was raised which stated “Balcony above has cracks in asphalt upstands and floor. Contractors required to renew balcony and affecting flat below.”
The landlord’s roofing contractor attended the property on 16 June 2021. The contractor noted on the works order “This balcony is a mess, cracks everywhere.”
The resident emailed an audio file to the landlord on 18 June 2021. The resident referred to the files as, “continuous nuisance, banging and shouting on my ceiling. This has yet to be addressed.”
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 June 2021. The resident stated, “banging noises from [neighbouring property].” The resident sent a further email to the landlord the following day related to “chair dragging noise, every day, morning, and night.” The resident emailed a further five audio files to the landlord related to “banging noise on the ceiling” on 21 and 24 June 2021.
The resident emailed an audio file to the landlord on 8 July 2021 related to “Banging and heavy steps”. The resident also stated “They are both making these noises deliberately as they have issues with me. I want action taken. I am sending you diaries and noise recordings every day that are disturbing my home. I should not be living under these poor conditions.”
The resident reported a leak into their property from above to the landlord on 12 July 2021. The resident advised their bathroom was flooded and the electrics did not work. The landlord repaired the leak on the same day. The resident subsequently emailed the landlord about the leak on 13 July 2021 requesting an investigation into the cause of the leak. The resident also stated that a balcony repair at the property above theirs remained outstanding.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 July 2021 to provide four police reference numbers related to incidents they reported. The email titled “drug use” explained the police advised the resident to report the matters the landlord. The resident stated “you have ignored other emails of ASB I have sent, please do not ignore this email. You need to take investigate and take action”. The landlord replied asking the resident to provide their address.
The resident emailed a stage one complaint to the landlord on 13 July 2021. The landlord issued an acknowledgment letter the same day advising it would respond by 3 August 2021. The complaint referred to the landlord’s response to:
1. repairs to a leak in the bathroom,
2. a fault with the electric fan,
3. a pipe blockage from the flat above which required investigation to determine the cause of the blockage,
4. forceful damage to the upstairs balcony which caused another kitchen leak,
5. delays repairing the balcony above which was causing ongoing leaks into the property,
6. reports of ongoing noise and ASB from properties above,
7. previous emails and noise recordings sent have not been responded to.
The landlord erected scaffold at the property on 19 July 2021 and noted the roofing contractor “will soon be able to carry out the specific works, weather permitting”. This Service has not seen evidence of the date the contractor subsequently took photographs of the damaged asphalt and completed the balcony repair using a liquid coat. The roofing contractor noted there “is no evidence that the defects in question were as a result of wilful damage.”
On 23 July 2021, an electrician attended the resident’s property and renewed the bathroom light and the switch as the property had since dried out. The repair was completed with no further follow-on works required.
The resident emailed an audio file to the landlord on 24 July 2021 and 3 audio files on 27 July 2021 which they referred to as “Banging on my ceiling”.
The landlord held an internal email exchange on 30 July 2021 about the resident’s complaint which confirmed the resident’s ASB complaint was at the Chief Executive stage. The landlord subsequently issued a letter to residents living in the block containing a reminder to take care not to block the drain. The landlord also issued its’ stage one response the same day which stated:
1. the landlord took action to remedy the leak into the bathroom from the balcony above and that the fan was in working order,
2. the repair was completed on the 12 July 2021 and follow on works identified and removed a blockage caused by a tin can in the balcony drain,
3. the landlord returned to the property on 23 July 2021 to install a new bathroom light after the room had dried out,
4. a previous leak into the kitchen which related to a neighbouring balcony fault was repaired on 18 May 2021,
5. Scaffolding was required for the balcony asphalt to be repaired which was erected on 19 July 2021 and the repair was underway at the time of the stage one response,
6. the resident should approach their insurer for any damaged personal effects,
7. there was no evidence that “wilful damage” was caused in relation to the tin can and asphalt damage,
8. “matters [related to the resident’s reports of noise transference and ASB] were outside the remit of the customer service team and responsive repairs dept” and were forwarded to another team to respond,
9. the resident’s complaint was not upheld.
The resident escalated their complaint to a stage one review on 4 August 2021. The resident stated:
1. they continued to feel ignored by the customer service staff in relation to the ASB reports made,
2. the tin can in the drain was deliberate and that the fault to the balcony asphalt was not wear and tear and also caused deliberately,
3. issuing a block letter to address the incidents was not satisfactory,
4. compensation of £100 should be provided for being “ignored by repairs assistant” staff,
5. neighbours should “also be given a letter reminding them of their duties in regards noise/ nuisance which they continue to do day-to-day.”
The landlord issued a stage one review response to the resident on 4 August 2021. The review response:
1. stated there was no evidence that the damage to the drain and the associated defects were “wilfully caused”,
2. restated that when the balcony repairs were complete any further remedial work required should be reported to the repairs staff and the insurer notified,
3. stated that matters related to the residents ASB reports would be addressed by a different department and that the information was forwarded,
4. stated the complaint was not upheld.
The landlord post inspected the balcony repair works on 5 August 2021. The contractor recorded the repairs as completed.
The landlord issued a Chief Executive complaint review letter to the resident dated 17 August 2021. The review letter referred to a previous housing ombudsman determination and related to the resident’s previous complaint made about littering, rubbish, and drug use. However the responses stated it would also address matters since May 2021. The letter stated:
1. “I have listened to your recent [noise nuisance] submissions and on review, as was found for your previous submissions; the noise captured is everyday living noise and does not constitute statutory noise nuisance “.
2. “Since May 2021, you have made numerous noise nuisance reports via the Noise App. The Homes and Communities Tenancy Team reviewed your reports; and found no evidence of excessive noise. The noise you have recorded is acceptable everyday living noise, not a statutory nuisance.”
3. “I have considered your complaint and decided your complaint is not upheld as I am satisfied your ASB reports have been logged and reviewed in accordance with the Council’s ASB policy and procedures. Your reports to date do not evidence noise above acceptable everyday living levels and there is insufficient evidence of drug use by your neighbour..”
The resident emailed the landlord nine different audio files on 14 September 2021. The files were sent between 12.30pm and 11.06pm and related to “noise”, “banging on the ceiling”, chair dragging”, “banging rhythmically”, “loud tapping on the ceiling”.
The resident emailed the landlord five different audio files on 21 September 2021 between 4.45pm and 5.12 pm. The resident stated the files related to “shouting outside the door and “banging on the ceiling.”
The landlord emailed the resident on 23 September 2021 about the noise recordings sent. The landlord asked the resident to use the noise app for sending noise recordings. The landlord advised it “had listened to the recording provided and could not hear anything that would be considered a statutory noise nuisance.”
The resident emailed further noise recordings to the landlord on 26 September 2021, stating it caused nuisance and disturbed their peace at home. The resident stated the matter was ongoing for 2 years and nothing was being done to address “slamming doors, drugs, shouting, fly tipping, banging on ceilings, scraping chairs, and verbal abuse”.
The landlord replied to the resident again on 27 September 2021 repeating that “many of the times of these recordings are during the daytime, when it is inevitable that noise will transmit from neighbouring properties. At the later times of these recordings, whilst there is some noise audible, these are not at a level that would be deemed a statutory noise nuisance”. The landlord requested the use the Noise app for recordings and restated the noise recordings provided “are not a level of noise we are able to take action on”.
The resident emailed three different audio files to the landlord on 30 September 2021 between 10.02pm and 10.34pm. The files related to banging on the ceiling.
The resident emailed nine different audio files to the landlord on 3 October 2021 between 8pm and 11.06pm. The files all related to banging on the ceiling.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 October 2021 stating they called the police on 1 October 2021 about noise nuisance that lasted 3 hours. The resident also confirmed the noise was recorded on the noise app, but no response was received from the ASB team. The resident asked the landlord about what was being done, as it wasn’t day to day living noise.
The resident emailed an audio file and a photograph of a neighbour to the landlord on 6 October 2021. The resident referred to the noise as a chair dragging on the ceiling. The landlord replied to the residents email later the same day stating:
1. “Once again, please may I ask that you use the Noise App to send through any noise recordings and not from your own device,
2. Once again, the noise[s] that you have submitted are not a statutory noise nuisance and no action can be taken.
3. I appreciate that you may be sensitive to noise levels, but what you are submitting is not at a level that we are able to deem as anti-social behaviour, and much of these sound like people walking around in their own property.”
The resident emailed four different audio files to the landlord on 16 October 2021 between 4.55pm and 17.58pm. The files all related to banging on the ceiling. The resident stated in one of the emails “the police have also suggested to put in place a community protection warning which I agree is the correct path to ensure I don’t continue to receive any deliberate nuisances from the flat 17 to protect my peace at home.”
The resident emailed three different audio files to the landlord on 17 October 2021 between 7pm and 8.30pm. The files related to banging on the ceiling and drug fumes in their flat.
The resident emailed five different audio files to the landlord on 24 October 2021 between 8.25pm and 9.50pm. The files all related to banging on the ceiling. The resident sent two further audio files to the landlord on 28 October 2021 related to chair dragging. The resident advised they contacted the neighbour about the noise which resulted in them receiving verbal abuse. The resident further stated there were “grievances against both flats and that they are involved with drug use and fly tipping. This is a passive method of causing an unnecessary nuisance.”
The landlord replied to the resident by email on 4 November 2021 requesting that the noise app is used for any recordings. The landlord stated it heard the noise, but it was not a statutory nuisance.
The landlord emailed the resident on 10 November 2021 stating “Whilst you are stating that you are affected by noise nuisance, the recordings that you are sending through to us are not evidencing that there is a nuisance. I would strongly advise that you do not contact your neighbours in regard to noise issues, as there is no evidence that they are causing a nuisance, and this is what would be deemed as normal noise transference between properties. I am sorry that we cannot assist you with this matter.”
The resident requested information from the landlord on 24 November 2021 about a drugs incident that was witnessed by the ASB night team. The resident did not state when the incident took place, but stated it was their third attempt at requesting information that was not provided within two 10-day timeframes. The resident requested information from a senior manager and stated they made a complaint about the ASB manager. The landlord replied to the email requesting the resident’s address. The resident provided their address.
The resident reported three incidents of ASB to the landlord on 24 November 2021, 15 December 2021, and 22 December 2021. The landlord completed and subsequently emailed three ASB initial reporting forms to its ASB Triage team in line with its policy internally about:
1. drug taking that was witnessed by the ASB team.
2. the presence of the caretaker on the estates on 10 December 2021 and 14 December 2021.
3. “ASB and housing issues” and “a number of things to discuss.”
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 December to speak about ASB and housing issues. The resident stated they did not wish to speak to a particular member of staff they had complained about and requested a call back.
The resident sent the landlord two emails on 24 December 2021 stating they “were woken up and 4am.” The resident did not provide any further information about the incident.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 28 December 2021 containing four police CAD reference numbers related to noise reports. The resident sent a further email the same day that reported noise from a moped and alleged that a caretaker that they reported was previously the subject of “a ban that prevented them from working near or in the residents block” shouted “pussy boy” to the resident. The resident stated the caretaker refused to explain why this was said and slammed the door of the caretakers area.
The resident emailed the landlord a further email containing MP4 files on 28 December 2021. The resident stated, “your harassing, violent, drug dealing staff member has history with moped ASB and still continues to drive back in the estate to deal.” “I have also attached a licence reg of one of the mopeds. This belongs to a resident known for joyriding and drugs. Sometimes as much as driving back and forth up to 6 times in quick succession.”
The resident copied the landlord into eight different MP4 files they emailed to the police safer neighbour team on 2 January 2022. The resident emailed 5 additional MP4 files directly to the landlord on 4 January 2022. The files related to moped noise which the resident perceived was related to drug delivery.
The landlord emailed the resident twice on 6 January 2022 in response to their call back request and reports of moped noise. The landlord stated:
1. “At present we do not have an allocated officer for your area, and I note that you do not wish for me to call you…please advise if you are willing to speak to me, if not, I am afraid that this week I do not have anyone that can call you back”.
2. “Thank you for the emails and footage that you are sending in, but I assume that these are food delivery drivers. As we are unable to identify who these are, there is no action that we are able to take. I am aware that the Police have advised you in this matter too. I have also asked the estate management board to see if they are able to assist with placing preventative measures at this access road to try and resolve the matter.”
The resident subsequently copied the landlord into 19 different MP4 files they emailed to the police safer neighbour team on 9 occasions during January 2022. The resident also emailed 17 different MP4 files directly to the landlord on 7 occasions during January 2022. The files all related to moped noise.
The resident reported “jumping stamping banging that has been going on for the last 30mins & continuing” to the ASB first response staff on 9 January 2022.
The resident reported “banging and stamping” to the landlord on 18 January 2022. The landlord called the resident back later the same day and the resident confirmed the noise had stopped.
The resident phoned the landlord on 23 January 2022 to “complain about neighbours – jumping stamping banging has been going on for since 10am & continuing”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 January 2022 to report “Continuous, forced, disturbing noises through 2 ceilings”.
In emails dated 26 January 2022 the resident described the footage as “Dealer on bike whistling for flat above to come out. He slows down to get off the bicycle at the end of the footage which is the entrance to my block. The tenant soon comes out. This then pollutes my flat”. The resident also stated the moped driver points at the residents property which was intimidation.
The landlord emailed the resident on 26 January 2022 to confirm receipt of nine emails relating to alleged ASB and drug dealing that day. The landlord stated “All of the images do not show any drug dealing or ASB. These are people using the service road to access/exit from the estate. In regard to your neighbour intimidating you…I will discuss this with him. In regard to the other issues you have alleged, there is no evidence to support your allegations, and there will be no action taken”.
The landlord emailed the resident again on 27 January 2022 in response to the residents further report of moped noise. The landlord stated that they will not respond to reports of mopeds as “this is not ASB”.
The resident emailed three MP4 files to the landlord on 10 February 2022 with a screenshot. The email was titled “intimidation continues.”
The resident copied the landlord into three different MP4 files they emailed to the police safer neighbour team on 11 February 2022. The files related to moped noise.
The resident emailed five MP4 files to the landlord on 14 February 2022. The resident stated the files referred to:
1. “continuous stares from residents, unknown residents, or the estate,”
2. “a man in a cap, spat in the garden previously.”
3. “continuous harassment from secretary of the estate management board” who “has followed me in cafes twice and nearby roads. Dismissed. Has previously been looking in my window. Dismissed. Evidence of looking into my window.”
A further five MP4 files were emailed to the landlord on 18 February 2022 and 19 February 2022 related to “cyclist and moped ASB”.
The mental health team emailed the landlord on 6 April 2022 requesting information about the impact of noise ASB, moped noise and people glaring at the resident, as well as their relationship with the people on the board. The email confirmed the resident was “under the mental health service.” The landlord replied to the email on 7 April 2022, stating:
1. the resident is an ongoing complainant of noise nuisance and provides non statutory reports of noise that cannot be heard or investigated.
2. the resident approaches neighbours about the noise incidents which is perceived as harassment and has received an injunction due to an altercation with the caretaker.
3. “[the resident] is forwarding recordings of motorbikes passing his window these seem like delivery drivers, and also of people walking past and he alleges that they are staring in at him, and this is not the evidence that we are witnessing.
4. Are you able to advise what [the resident’s] diagnosis is, and can you advise what support he is receiving?”.
The landlord issued its chief executive stage response to the resident’s complaint on 8 April 2022. The response:
1. listed the sources of information used to assess the response including previous complaint responses, video footage, a surveyors report, photographs and consultation with homes and communities and repairs staff,
2. acknowledged a two-month gap between a leak in the kitchen in May 2021 and a bathroom flood in July 2021,
3. summarised actions were taken to address the leaks and apologised for the inconvenience they caused,
4. confirmed works to reseal the balcony were completed on 5 August 2021 and there were no reports the suggest “wilful damage” as was suggested,
5. stated there was no evidence to confirm where the tin that blocked a drain came from but that it was removed from the main stack during the repair,
6. confirmed the landlord reviewed the extensive history of ASB reports and investigations, the noise on the recordings was considered “everyday noise” and not excessive and there was no reasonable cause for the council to take action against the residents,
7. advised no action would be taken other than issuing a block letter as there is insufficient evidence to do otherwise.
8. addressed the perception that the resident is “being ignored regarding reports of ASB” by requesting further specific details from the resident.
9. offered £75 compensation for the delay in issuing the complaint response and a further £25 for failure to issue a block letter, as requested.
The resident reported their complaint to this Service which was accepted as duly made on 27 June 2022.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in the Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Service has a very specific role in considering whether the landlord has met its obligations to a leaseholder and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint.

The resident’s reports of water ingress from the balcony and within the property

The resident’s kitchen was affected by water ingress from the flat roof above on 18 May 2021. The landlord raised a works order the same day for a contractor to inspect and rectify the leak. The landlord’s response aligned with landlord’s repairs policy. The resident did not report any further incidents or refer to the presence of water ingress into the kitchen as a concern in their subsequent stage one complaint. It is therefore reasonable for this Service to conclude the water ingress was repaired within 24 hours and any detriment to the resident was limited.
The landlord inspected the balcony above the resident’s property on 26 May 2021 and recommended asphalt repairs which required a scaffold. The contractor returned on 19 July 2021 to erect single storey scaffold after which the balcony asphalt repair was completed.
This service has not seen evidence of the date the balcony repair was completed, but the landlord recorded the repair as complete on 5 August 2021. Given the repair required a scaffold, it was reasonable for the landlord to reclassify it as a ‘planned repair,’ therefore requiring additional time. The repair was completed within the landlord’s policy timescale of 60 days which was reasonable.
The resident was affected by water ingress into their bathroom again on 12 July 2021 when the drain above their property was blocked resulting in flooding and an electric failure in their bathroom. This Service recognises that a severe leak into a property can cause detriment and distress to the effected resident. However, the landlord could not have foreseen and therefore prevented the events taking place. The landlord repaired the water ingress within its policy timescale of 24 hours and agreed to return to the property to complete additional repairs when the property dried out. This was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take.
The landlord cleared the ground drain and removed a tin can from the drain above the resident’s property within 48 hours and repaired the bathroom electrics ten days later on the 23 July 2021. This Service consequently finds no failure in the landlord’s handling of the bathroom repair.
This Service acknowledges the residents view that the can was placed deliberately to block the drain, and that the damage to the balcony asphalt was deliberate and not “wear and tear.” However, the landlord stated in its complaint responses that it found no evidence to confirm where the tin can originated, nor did it’s contractor find any evidence of ‘wilful damage’ to the balcony. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s view that the matters were deliberate which was a finding the landlord arrived at based upon its assessment of the evidence available to it. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to make this assessment, rather to assess the landlord’s response to the residents’ complaint which in this instance was clear and considered.
Taking into account all elements, both positive and negative this Service consequently finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of the water ingress from the balcony and within the property.

The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour, particularly noise transference.

When investigating complaints about ASB, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether the ASB exists as alleged, rather, the Ombudsman’s role is to review the evidence that is available and determine whether the landlord acted in line with its duties, obligations and procedure as set out in any relevant policies. It is noted that there has been a significant amount of correspondence from the resident. Whilst the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord is duly noted, this report will not address each and every specific incident. Rather, the Ombudsman has carefully considered all the available evidence and this report will take a view on the landlord’s overall handling of the matter.
The resident emailed the landlord three times in May 2021 to report antisocial behaviour from the property above related to “cannabis pollution” and noise transference from “chairs dragging and banging noises”. The landlord contacted the neighbour within 24 hours about the alleged use of cannabis. The neighbour denied the allegations but was reminded that drug taking is unacceptable. The landlord subsequently contacted the police who confirmed “no evidence of drug use.” This was an appropriate response for the landlord to take, but it is not clear to this Service if the landlord updated the resident, such as by sending a case closure letter in line with its policy.
The resident emailed eight reports of “banging noises, shouting and chair dragging,” to the landlord in June 2021 and confirmed they submitted recordings using a noise app. The resident stated they had not heard anything from the landlord and asked it “what will you do about this?.” This Service would expect the landlord to respond promptly to the resident with advice about what action it intended to take to investigate their reports of noise transference. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord contacted the resident about their reports which would have caused detriment to the resident who continued experience noise that they believed the landlord was expected to promptly address.
The resident reported further reports of drug use and noise transference by email and using the noise app in July 2021 also stating the landlord ignored their reports. By continually failing to respond to the resident the landlord failed to uphold the principles of its ASB policies. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have acknowledged and/or investigated the reports it received, verified from alternative sources whether their reports were substantiated and communicated with the resident about the possible remedies available to it. The landlord recognised that it had not responded to the residents reports in an internal email it sent on 26 July 2021 between departments however this did not facilitate a response being issued to the resident. This increased the detriment caused to the resident and did not manage their expectations.
On 17 August 2021, the landlord sent a chief executive response to the resident confirming the resident submitted noise reports using a noise app since May 2021. The landlord stated it found “the noise recorded was acceptable everyday living noise, not a statutory nuisance.” The landlord’s response provided up-to-date information and attempted to manage the resident’s expectations, and this was appropriate. However, it was sent 3 months later than the resident’s first reports of noise transference and this was unreasonable. The landlord was expected to provide this type of advice sooner so that the resident understood what action the landlord could reasonably take. Despite the letter stating the landlord reviewed the resident’s recordings, this Service has not seen any prior communication being provided to the resident about its assessment of the recordings.
The landlord responded to the residents reports in an email dated 23 September 2021, some four months after their first report. The landlord stated the recordings were during daytime hours and were “not an issue we can deal with.” This Service accepts that low-level daytime noise may not be statutory noise nuisance and the landlord was limited in any enforcement action it could take. However, the resident had submitted reports of noise later than 10pm which was not during daytime hours. The landlord was expected to assess all the evidence available to it and manage the resident’s expectations in relation to the reports they submitted.
The landlord was expected to consider alternative options to address the non-statutory noise reports it received from the resident beyond taking enforcement action, such as the use of mediation and/or the assessment of suitable flooring, underlay or carpeting. Taking an informative approach would have managed the resident’s expectations and created understanding of what constituted noise nuisance and what could be addressed. This Service as not seen any evidence that the landlord did so. It did not issue warnings to the resident that unsubstantiated allegations could constitute harassment, further that and their recording of neighbours could represent a data privacy breach. The landlord’s failure to respond appropriately to the residents reports created time and trouble to the resident and caused them ongoing detriment which could have been reduced if clear advice were issued to the resident sooner.
The resident emailed further reports and audio files of banging noises to the landlord on 26 September 2021, within days of the landlord’s previous advice. This prompted the landlord to reply again within 24 hours restating advice to use the noise app, and that the recordings were during the daytime, or not at a level it “is able to take action on”. The landlord’s response was appropriate and timely, however failed to sufficiently explain that sending reports of noise at a level that it assessed as low-level living noise was inappropriate and potentially constituted harassment.
The landlord emailed the resident five times between 23 September 2021 and 10 November 2021 asking them to use the noise app and stating the noise was not statutory. However, during this time the resident reported drug fumes in their property and harassment from the neighbours in addition to noise transference which were not addressed. Under the terms of its ASB procedure the landlord was expected to respond to the reports of harassment by taking a “victim-centred approach” and completing an initial assessment form, and/or diversity monitoring form. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord investigated the reported drug fumes and harassment, opened an ASB casefile, interviewed the resident, or sought a further response from the resident about the situation thereby failing to deliver on its’s policy values. The residents reports of drug use and harassment were not addressed, and this was a significant failure.
Notwithstanding, to comply with its ASB and vulnerable residents guidance note procedures the landlord was expected to verify if the resident was vulnerable on the basis that they may be contributing to problems around their tenancy. The landlord should have verified if they were known to support services and either engaged with those services to complete a joint visit, or office interview. Alternatively, to make a referral for housing support with reference to the residents description of harassment which represents a potential vulnerability concern. The landlord did not interview the resident or consider taking an alternative approach to communicate with the resident about their reports of noise transference and ASB, such as by speaking to the resident about the situation to ensure its messages were understood. Nor did it seek to gather information about the reports such as through the use of its ‘appeal for witnesses standard letter.’ By repeatedly emailing the same advice the landlord did not adequately ensure its advice was clearly understood, therefore the resident’s sustained their reporting unclear as to what threshold was required before the noise reached a level that might be considered and acted upon as asb by the landlord.
The resident requested copies of two initial assessment forms on 24 November 2021 and 15 December 2021, related to two different incidents of alleged antisocial behaviour they reported. Under the terms of the ASB procedure, the landlord was expected to complete initial assessment forms and forward these to an ASB officer with an opened antisocial behaviour casefile. However, this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord provided the transaction reports to the resident or took any other action to address the matters the resident reported which was expected.
The resident reported verbal abuse directed towards them from a caretaker in an incident that took place on 28 December 2021, but this Service has not seen any casework evidence that the landlord investigated this matter, or any of the other emails the resident sent to it since 11 November 2021. This caused distress, increased the detriment to the resident, and prompted them to make a complaint about their housing officer which they confirmed during a phone conversation they held with the landlord on 22 December 2021.
The landlord emailed the resident in response to 13 emails and MP4 files they sent in January 2022 reporting their perception of drug dealing and noise from the use of mopeds. By replying to the resident the landlord attempted to manage the residents expectations and this was reasonable. However, it is not clear what the landlord relied upon when indicating that the matters were not significant. The landlord should have expanded its lines of investigation, such as by verifying the matters with the police safer neighbourhood team, interviewing the resident and/or the neighbours so as to be fully confident it could not take any action.
The landlord replied to the resident’s 24 further reports of moped ASB, drug dealing and intimidation three weeks later on 26 and 27 January 2021. However the landlords subsequent responses to the resident’s reports also fail to demonstrate adequate efforts to verify the alleged behaviours.
Whilst it is accepted that drug dealing and harassment have criminal elements which the police were expected to address, the landlord also had the responsibility to ensure criminal and antisocial elements were not present on its estates and was expected to work with the police to address this in a cohesive way. No evidence has been provided to this Service to confirm that conversations were held with the resident or the police about the matters they reported..
The landlord’s response to the various matters the resident reported in this case was almost entirely by email with little or no evidence of telephone conversations, investigation, or visits to the address to discuss the matters taking place. The landlord was expected to use various methods to communicate with the resident and their neighbours in the handling of the matters reported, especially where evidence suggested the landlords advice was not being acted on or understood by the resident.
The landlord decided the neighbour noise and moped noise matters reported were not statutory noise and as a result failed to investigate further or take action. y This determination created a barrier to finding an alternative resolution to the matter the landlord was responsible for and this was a failure. It is accepted that throughout some months of 2021, the landlord’s actions were restricted due to government advice related to Covid-19. However, this Service has not seen evidence that the landlord took any subsequent action to address the matters when it could have visited the properties to investigate further.
The landlord assessed the severity of the ongoing noise transference from banging, shouting, chairs scraping, and moped use as relatively low, and it is recognised the landlord was limited in the direct action it could take, but it was the landlord’s responsibility to explain this clearly and in a timely way. The Housing Ombudsman spotlight report on noise complaints states “although a lack of statutory noise levels does limit landlords’ options, particularly tenancy enforcement action, it does not absolve them of the requirement to explore other suitable resolution.” The resident reported experiencing noise transference, in sporadic periods, day and night over at least a 12-month period. This impact would have affected the resident’s quiet enjoyment of their home and led to distress and inconvenience. Further, the time and trouble taken by the resident to make reports, complaints and submit emails and audio files to the landlord was significant and avoidable had the landlord better ensured the residents understanding of thresholds.
The resident expressed a view that the landlord did not respond to their reports adequately and this could have been addressed by providing more regular contact about the landlord’s interpretation and handling of the reports it received. The landlord could have been more initiative-taking in addressing the low-level noise transference using non-legal remedies such as by offering mediation, assessing the flooring, or carpeting in the properties, or using acceptable behaviour agreements to control noise transference.”
The landlord failed to adequately respond to and investigate the reports of drug dealing, intimidation, and harassment and this was a significant failure that had the potential for harm and increased the detriment and distress to the resident. The landlords policies and procedures are clear in the action that should have been taken to respond to the reports of harassment in a victim centred capacity. This was a further failure.
By failing to respond, do so promptly, or adequately demonstrate the efficacy of its investigations into the residents reports the landlord caused an extended period of distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord policies state that a victim centred approach is required, yet this Service has not seen adequate evidence that the landlord consistently operated in a manner commensurate with that policy statement. In failing to clearly explain what it could and could not do to the residents’ it failed to ensure clarity or expectation. Landlord are expected to investigate residents reports and consider evidence supplied irrespective of whether such evidence is recorded or reported through its in-house noise application. This did not happen in this case. Alternative approaches were also not considered and despite the challenges of managing low level noise transference and the impact of the pandemic – this service finds maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and noise transference.

The complaint handling and level of compensation offered to the resident due to stress, inconvenience and service failure.

When identifying whether there has been failure in service the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaint and compensation procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
The Housing Ombudsman Complaints Handling Code 2020 states that landlords should comply with the Equality Act 2010, and may need to adapt normal policies, procedures, or processes to accommodate an individual’s needs. Landlords shall have a reasonable adjustments policy in place to address this.
The landlord’s complaint policy sets out clear principles for handling formal complaints. Its complaint policy sets out values and seeks to deliver a complaint handling service that complies with the principles and expectations of the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (‘the Code’). However, the landlord operates a stage one, then a stage one review and finally a chief executive complaint stage as a final opportunity to review the responses issued to the resident. This effectively created a three-stage complaint process which does not align with the code and delayed the residents’ access to this Service. It is acknowledged that since this complaint the landlord has reviewed its complaint policy and now operates a two-stage complaint process.
The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s stage one and stage one review request and their escalation request within its policy timescales. The responses provided to the residents’ complaints were detailed, clear and based upon thorough investigations from various sources of information. The responses apologised to the resident and explained that the complaint was not upheld. By issuing responses within 10 working days the landlord complied with its own complaint procedures and the principles of housing ombudsman complaint handling code. This Service recognises in particular the landlords focus on detail in the response provided.
However, the complaint responses stated that the resident’s complaint about ASB would be responded to separately at a chief executive stage. It is not clear to this Service why the landlord chose to classify the ASB complaint differently, beyond noting it related to another team of staff. By doing so the landlord failed to provide an adequate two-tiered response to the ASB aspects of the complaint, therefore denying the resident’s right to request a review. This does not align with the landlord’s complaint policy, the housing ombudsman scheme or the complaint handling code and could have been avoided by working cohesively across teams to produce one response that covered all aspects of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord issued two chief executive responses related to various matters including antisocial behaviour. The first response dated 17 August 2021 related to a previous complaint the resident had made, but confirmed the landlord had assessed the ASB reports the resident made since May 2021. Combining two different complaints into one response was confusing particularly as the response did not fully address the resident’s additional complaint related to their perception that the landlord was not responding to the ASB reports they submitted.
The landlord issued a subsequent chief executive response on 8 April 2022, 8 months later than the landlord’s stage one complaint review response. The chief executive response covered in detail the residents’ complaints about the water ingress and their perception that the matters were related and deliberate and this Service considers, apart from the wholly unreasonable delay, the response adequately addressed the residents’ concerns about these aspects. However, the response to the resident’s complaint about ASB and their perception that the landlord had not addressed their concerns failed to fully offer adequate explanation, apology, or a resolution. This caused inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident.
The chief executive response did not respond adequately to the resident’s perception that the landlord ignored their ASB report. Instead, it asked the resident to provide further information about the matter. The landlord was expected to have investigated the matter and/or requested further information when the complaint was made, rather than 8 months later and after the event. This resulted in a failure to address this element of the residents’ complaint.
The landlord recognised some detriment to the resident caused by its complaint handling delays and a failure to issue a block letter related to an element of their complaint outside this investigation. As a result the landlord offered the resident £75 compensation for its complaint handling delays and £25 for is service failing related to the block letter.
Considering the time it took for the landlord to respond to the residents complaint, their reports of noise transference and ASB, and its failure to provide robust action, based on adequate and timely assessments of the matters reported, the landlords offer was not sufficient redress for the damage caused.
When looking at compensation as a remedy for dissatisfaction, this service first looks at the landlord’s own assessment of its service failure and the redress due. We then look at the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance (published on our website) to assess if the award is reasonable. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out awards greater than those provided, and it is unclear to this Service why the landlord did not fully consider and offer compensation levels that more closely matched the detriment to the resident.
When all events are considered cumulatively this Service consequently finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and level of compensation offered.

The landlord’s proactive engagement with external agencies in response to the resident’s welfare needs.

It is clear from the multi-agency communication that the resident was known to and receiving the support of adult mental health services. This Service has seen evidence that the mental health services emailed the landlord in April 2022 as a means to understand the situation the resident was faced with. The landlord responded to the request for information appropriately and, although communication was limited to this information exchange, the willingness of the landlord to engage was timely and a sign of good practise.
There is an expectation that landlords can and should seek ways to respond to vulnerability and welfare need where it is apparent, or where there is a possibility that ruling it out, or in, could assist with the care and support the landlord was able to provide. The resident reported various incidents which they perceived as harassment and whilst the resident did not fully elaborate on the reasons they felt targeted in their communications there was sufficient information for the landlord to have seen the opportunity to assess the residents vulnerability using assessment tools available to it. This was not actioned.
That is not to say there is an assumption of vulnerability presented in this case, rather, that a conversation with the resident about it, may have revealed alternative approaches the landlord could have considered to aid its response to the situation. Taking this approach would have aided the landlord in providing housing services with respect to the needs of the resident and the perception of the detriment they were caused.
Despite the amount of repeated contact and the level of noise the resident reported being indicators of a welfare need, the landlord failed to consider the elevated impact the situation had on the resident which caused them detriment.. The landlord was expected to consider additional approaches to the situation such as by beneficially engaging with support agencies outside of, or in addition to primary care services the resident was engaged with.
Given the seriousness of harassment claims this service would expect the landlord to have made contact with the resident to discuss the matters they reported, their perception of the harassment and to record subsequent statements of the discussions held on it housing records. This Service has not seen any record to confirm the landlord responded to or held conversations with the resident about harassment, vulnerability, or the perception that they were a victim, and this was expected.
The landlord was also expected to engage with the police and safer neighbourhood teams throughout the handling of the antisocial behaviour cases, where it related to criminal aspects, such as drug dealing and the perception of harassment. This Service has not seen significant evidence that the landlords practises were to regularly consult with the police and safer neighbourhood team to suitably address the residents perception of antisocial behaviour. Based upon the resident’s CAD report, the police advised the resident they were a victim of harassment as a result of the noise transference they experienced. Further that the resident should request the landlord takes action such as a community protection warning, but this advice was not addressed by the landlord, such as by phoning the police or resident to discuss the matters.
There is a recognition that landlords are limited in the actions they can take which centre wholly on the terms and conditions of the occupancy agreement, and the law and landlord and tenant legislation. Social housing providers recognise there is a high level of unmet welfare need within the general needs social housing population. Landlords must augment their own response and resourcing by having in place suitable and effective arrangements with other organisations and where possible make reasonable adjustments to their policies and practises to facilitate the provision of effective housing services. Joint working protocols and data sharing agreements with mental health services, police, safer neighbourhood teams, social services and schools all contribute to creating opportunities and pathways for responding to challenging situations that landlords cannot effectively be addressed in isolation. In this case the landlord has failed to fully utilise partnership opportunities to affect an earlier and more effective resolution of the residents welfare needs. This Service has seen limited evidence that engagement with other agencies was considered and/or addressed during the handling of this case. As a result this service finds service failure in the landlord’s proactive engagement with external agencies in response to the resident’s welfare needs.

The landlord’s management of information and record keeping practices.

This Service would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts, decisions, actions, and repairs, in order that it manages, handles, shares and uses information and knowledge in an appropriate and effective way. Keeping accurate records enables landlords to understand the condition of its housing stock and the status of its housing management practises at any given time thereby assisting it to carry out its landlord obligations. If there is disputed evidence and no clear audit trail, this Service may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
The landlord completed two different repairs to address water ingress into the resident’s kitchen and bathroom in May 2021 and July 2021. The landlord did not provide evidence to this Service, nor refer to internal records in its complaint responses that confirm the specific dates the repairs were completed. Though this Service has seen evidence that the landlord completed the repairs without any significant detriment to the resident, it was expected to retain accurate records of the actions it took to complete the repair.
The landlord repeatedly requested that the resident should submit noise reports using a noise app, yet in its complaint response dated 17 August 2021 the landlord confirmed it was aware the resident submitted reports on the app. This was contradictory and therefore it is not clear if or how information was shared between its ASB, customer services and tenancy management staff and/or how it was used to facilitate an effective response to the resident.
The landlord took an excluding approach to noise recordings the resident captured outside the noise recording app. This Service is unclear why alternate recording methodologies used by the resident were excluded from its considerations in this case.
The resident referred to their submission of diary sheets to the landlord which related to noise from neighbouring properties and its impact on them. The landlord was expected to be able to demonstrate its efforts to collect, retain and use knowledge and information in relation to the ASB service it provided. This Service has not seen evidence of the diary sheets which suggests the landlord did not retain the evidence securely as it was expected to do. It is possible that the resident failed to attach the document(s) to the email as they stated, in which case the landlord was expected to request the evidence as an effective means of gathering evidence of ASB and understanding the impact it had on the resident.
There are occasions when the landlord stated it contacted to the police about the matters the resident reported, however there is no evidence of this beyond the landlord’s statement. The landlord was expected to retain email exchanges or document the conversations it held or meetings it attended about the matters in this report, with police or other agencies. This Service has not seen any records of this type of information or evidence that it was retained.
The resident requested a copy of the landlord’s ASB initial assessment report on 24 November 2021, related to an incident that was witnessed by the landlord’s ASB team. It is not clear to this Service when the incident took place, but the resident stated it was the third time they had requested the information. The landlord was expected to complete an assessment of incidents of ASB and forward the paperwork with an opened ASB case to the relevant ASB officer, therefore it was reasonable for the resident to request the documentation. This Service has not seen any evidence to confirm the landlord provided the requested report on this date, or another the resident requested on 15 December 2021. Further, if took any other action based upon the information/evidence the resident provided.
By failing to manage, share, and use information effectively and retain accurate, contemporaneous records of activity undertaken, the landlord was unable to understand the dates some repairs were completed. Nor provide effective communication to the resident in a timely manner. The impact of its information handling practices caused detriment, time, trouble, and distress to the resident, resulting from assumptions it made about evidence, and a lack of ownership amongst the landlord’s staff. Despite the presence of a significant number of emails from the resident and a recognition that responding to each one was not reasonably practical the landlord should have used and shared information in a more robust way, balancing the needs of the Service with the expectations of the resident.
This investigation has surfaced multiple instances of failure to capture, record, or utilise held data so as to maximise the quality of its operations and service delivery to the resident. This Service notes an absence of specific records and forms which its own procedures require including ‘appeal for witness letters,’ risk assessments, records of communication with third parties, and core repair records. The Housing Ombudsman’s May 2023 spotlight report on knowledge and information refers specifically to these types of incidences and the landlord is encouraged to consider the impact its knowledge management has on the quality of its housing services.
Completing and keeping robust and good quality records is best practise and therefore expected. The landlord may come to rely on its record keeping as evidence of action taken, decisions reached, or assessments undertaken to name a few examples. This Service has seen evidence that the landlord does retain records, such as works orders, emails. However, this is not consistent practice and there are instances, such as records of phone conversations, initial ASB reporting forms or multi agency work involving the police where records were not readily available. Taking the positive and negative elements of the landlord’s record keeping into account this Service finds service failure in its management of information and record keeping practices.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of:

a. The resident’s reports of water ingress from the balcony and within the property.

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of:

b. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour, particularly noise transference.

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of:

c. Complaint handling and level of compensation offered to the resident due to stress, inconvenience and service failure.

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to:

d. proactive engagement with external agencies in response to the resident’s welfare needs.

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to:

e. Management of information and record keeping practices.

Reasons

The landlord investigated and responded to the water ingress reported by the resident in a timely way, and in line with its policies and procedures. The landlord was unable to substantiate the resident’s view that the water ingress was a deliberate act and explained this clearly to the resident in its complaint responses.
The landlord failed to reasonably address the reports of noise transference, harassment, intimidation, and drug use in a responsive and timely way. The landlord failed to seek alternative ways to evidence, or respond to the reports the resident made, such as through use of mediation, property adaptations or multi agency partnerships. The landlord repeated advice it previously provided and relied on email to communicate with the resident despite being aware that the resident continued to experience ongoing concerns. The landlord’s failure to take a prompt and responsive approach to the non-statutory and more serious reports of ASB increased distress and detriment to the resident.
The landlord failed to issue compensation awards in line with its policy and in recognition of the distress and inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident. The landlord’s decision not to respond to the resident’s ASB complaint at stage one and stage review of the complaint procedure was not in line with the housing ombudsman complaint handling code guidelines. This ultimately caused a significant delay in the ASB matters being addressed, resulted in this element of the complaint not being fully addressed in the chief executive response and removed an opportunity for the resident to request a review of the landlord’s complaint response.
The landlord was expected to engage with agencies when responding to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and their vulnerability and perception of harassment. There was no evidence to confirm the landlord did so, or that it considered approaching other agencies in response to the reports it received about matters that would have benefitted from a multi-agency approach. The resident’s welfare needs and the impact the situation had on them individually was not adequately considered or addressed and this caused them detriment and distress.
The landlord did not consistently capture, retain, use, and share information related to the resident complaints. The landlord did not consistently retain accurate repair information or share information across departments, such as in relation to their handling of ASB reports. The landlord retained evidence of email exchanges and works orders which it provided to this Service as evidence, but there was additional information that the landlord was expected to record that has not been seen by this Service therefore it cannot be relied on as evidence of the landlord’s activity, action or decision making. The landlord’s management of information in different situations and settings, as referenced in this report adversely impacted on the landlords provision of quality of housing services, and its complaint responses and this caused detriment to the resident.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failure in respect of its ASB management and complaint management practices.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident.
1. £350 for its complaint management failings,
2. £800 for its ASB management failings representing.

(1) £200 for time and trouble

(2) £600 for distress and inconvenience.

The total award is £1150. This award replaced the landlord’s previous offer of £100 and should be directly to the resident within four weeks of receipt of this report.
The landlord is ordered to initiate and complete a review of the learning in this case and advise this service of its findings and intentions within four weeks of receipt of this report. This review must at minimum consider:
1. its methodologies and operational practises in respect of its engagement with support services where there are evident welfare needs.
2. enhancements to its operational practises and staff competencies in respect of management of non-statutory noise and noise transference, record keeping, managing resident expectations, timeliness, and communication. This should draw reference to the Ombudsman’s noise complaint Spotlight recommendations.
3. the learning on this case in respect of its management of knowledge and information. It is recommended that the landlord reviews and incorporates the best practise highlighted in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information into the provision of housing services.
Any identified enhancements and improvements to its business-as-usual operations should be implemented by the landlord within three months of receipt this report.