London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202121703)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121703

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

14 November 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of antisocial behaviour (ASB) in October 2021.
The Ombudsman has also considered:
1. Record keeping.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord since 2005.

ASB policy

The landlord states in its ASB policy that it will assess reports using evidence available, the harm or potential harm to the reporting party, victim or witnesses, and the apparent motivation. It says:
1. High priority cases will be logged and assessed within 1 working day.
2. Standard priority cases will be logged and assessed within 3 working days.
The ASB policy states the landlord will treat those affected by ASB sympathetically and sensitively. It says it will seek to identify any other vulnerabilities or support needs of the reporting party and of the alleged perpetrator.
The landlord says that, in its investigation and management of ASB reports, it will:
1. Keep in regular contact with all parties.
2. Where necessary, arrange an interview with the reporting party, and identify any particular circumstances or needs that should be factored into the handling of the case.
3. Refer and signpost to appropriate agencies.
4. Provide advice and support, such as making referrals to other agencies that can provide assistance.
5. Agree an action plan with the reporting party and keep this regularly updated.
6. Use powers and remedies that are appropriate to reduce ASB. This includes mediation, acceptable behaviour contracts, tenancy breach warning letters, as well as legal measures such as injunctions, evictions and community protection notices.
The landlord’s complaints policy from the time sets out a 2 stage complaints process. It states that:
1. stage 1 complaint responses should be provided within 10 working days, and that if it cannot do so the landlord will write to explain why. It states it should then write again within 10 working days.
2. stage 2 complaint responses should be provided with 20 working days and will write to explain why if it cannot do so. It states it should then write again within 10 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy from the time sets out that it will consider an offer of compensation when an apology alone is not sufficient, and to recognise the impact of a failing. It states that compensation will be awarded in a manner that it fair and proportionate.

Summary of events

On 13 September 2021 the landlord received a report from the resident that her neighbour (Ms M) had held a large party on 11 September 2021. She complained of noise from this party and the behaviour of those attending.
On 15 September 2022 the landlord sent an email to the resident. It said it would be visiting Ms M on 16 September 2021 to speak to her about the party at the building. The landlord has since told this Service that, after speaking to Ms M about the matter, it decided to take no further action.
On 4 October 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to report an incident with Ms M. She said Ms M had closed the communal door causing the resident to put her hand through the glass in the door.
On 5 October 2021 the landlord received a further information from the resident, and counter allegations from Ms M, about an incident of 4 October 2021. The resident said:
1. The glass in the door had smashed causing an injury to her hand.
2. The police had been in attendance.
3. Issues with Ms M were having a negative impact on her well-being and she was staying with her sister.
4. She was registered disabled.
5. She wanted to be contacted by email.
On 6 October 2021 the landlord noted it:
1. had requested full police disclosure.
2. was to contact the resident urgently to discuss the next steps.
3. was to put in place an action place agree contact.
On 11 October 2021 the resident contacted the landlord again about issues with Ms M. She said Ms M had called the police and did not feel safe living at the property. She said her mental health was being affected.
On 14 October 2021 the landlord sent an email to the resident. It asked that the resident make contact to set up the action plan and discuss how the landlord could help.
The resident responded the same day. She said:
1. The only course of action was for the landlord to inform her when Ms M had “been removed”.
2. She had moved out of the property, had been prescribed sleeping pills by her doctor. She requested a meeting with the landlord to discuss her needs.
The landlord has since told this Service that an action plan was not put in place as the resident had said the only action required was for Ms M to be removed.
On 18 October 2021 the landlord noted a manager’s review of the resident’s ASB case. It noted:
1. it was still awaiting police disclosure.
2. it was completing safeguarding and would make contact with mental health teams.
3. it would draft a letter to both the resident and Ms M about behaviour and breach of tenancy.
The is no evidence the landlord had further contact with the resident, or of any other action on the case, until 14 December 2021 when the resident requested an update. The following day the landlord noted it called the resident. It stated it had received police disclosure, but this did not confirm she had been a victim of an assault. It noted the police had said it had told both the resident and Ms M to refrain from contact with each other.
On 20 December 2021 the resident sent an email to the landlord. She said the police had made “a mistake” and the incident with her neighbour had now been classified as grievous bodily harm (GBH.) That day the landlord made further contact with the police to query the classification of the incident of October 2021. It noted that the police’s initial report stated the resident was not the victim of an assault.
On 22 December 2021 this Service wrote to the landlord to raise the resident’s complaint following contact from her. This set out that the complaint was about how it had responded to the resident’s ASB reports about Ms M.
On 6 January 2022 the resident sent an email to the landlord. She said she had “no faith” in the landlord while her “attacker” was “roaming around freely”. She said that it had been 3 months and there had been no consequences that she was aware of. The resident added that she had been “bullied” out of her home.
Later that day, the landlord spoke to the resident. It noted it discussed her concerns and the actions taken on her case. It followed this up by sending her an email. It said it would provide her with a complaint response by 14 January 2022.
On 14 January 2022 the landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint. It said:
1. The resident had made contact following an “altercation” with Ms M on 4 October 2021, when the resident sustained an injury, and the police were called.
2. An ASB case was opened following the resident’s report, and a tenancy management officer began conducting an investigation.
3. Police disclosure was requested to understand what action the police had taken, but this was taking longer than expected and it had not been able to progress tenancy enforcement action.
4. It had spoken to Ms M about the incident. It said it had advised her not to approach the resident, had reminded her of the terms and conditions of her tenancy, and the possible implications of a tenancy breach.
5. It had received counter allegations regarding the incident of 4 October 2021. It said that the video evidence sent by the resident did not confirm either party’s allegations and that it was required to wait for the police information before progressing.
6. The case had been handled in line with its ASB policy and that it would ensure the resident was contacted regularly in line with its contact agreement.
The landlord said that once it received police disclosure it would review this and progress tenancy enforcement action if necessary.
The landlord went on to say that if it believed there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate a clear breach of tenancy “beyond reasonable doubt” it would be able to take action without waiting for police evidence. However, it said it needed to clarify with the police who was responsible for the incident.
The landlord apologised if the resident felt unsupported. It said it was treating the ASB case very seriously. It said if the resident wanted to apply for temporary accommodation, it could provide her with a supporting letter. It noted the resident had said she would be staying with her sister.
The landlord has since told this Service that its discussions with Ms M about this incident were via telephone. It has provided no contemporaneous notes of these telephone discussions.
On 24 January 2022 the resident sent an email to the landlord under the reference of its stage 1 response of 14 January 2022. She said she was verbally assaulted by Ms M and her visitors. The resident said that Ms M had caused her “bodily harm” and she was still waiting for the landlord to respond appropriately. On 25 January 2022 the landlord noted the resident was unhappy with the complaint response and that it had reopened the case.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 26 January 2022. She outlined dissatisfaction with the way the landlord had investigated the incident of 4 October 2021 and the actions taken.
On 29 January 2022 the police set out in an email to the landlord details of its attendance at the incident of 4 October 2022. It said that:
1. The resident believed Ms M had closed the communal door with the intention of causing her injuries.
2. Both parties had been advised to stay away from each other and await a solution from their landlord.
3. The resident had since said she did not consider officers had dealt with the incident properly on the day and that she believed someone should have been arrested.
4. It had received allegations from the resident and Ms M about the incident. It said there was insufficient evidence to proceed with an allegation of assault made by the resident about Ms M, or to proceed with the allegation made by Ms M about the resident.
5. It had made the resident aware that there was a lack of substantive evidence for an investigation to take place, and that the report had been closed.
On 31 January 2022 the resident contacted the landlord about a parking issue she was having with Ms M. She said:
1. The landlord had previously agreed that the driveway was for the sole use of her property, but Ms M’ visitors had parked in front of the driveway.
2. She felt she was being bullied and harassed by Ms M and her family.
On 1 February 2022 the police sent an email to the landlord about contact from the resident about her driveway dispute. The police said:
1. The resident was clearly suffering distress due to the ongoing dispute with her neighbour.
2. The dispute was getting worse, and it asked that the landlord look into the matter.
On 7 February 2022 the landlord made email contact with the police to arrange to speak about the ongoing dispute between the resident and Ms M. There is no record of the outcome of this contact.
On 11 February 2022 the landlord sent a weekly update email to the resident. It said it had spoken to the police and local authority to discuss the resident’s case. It said the police was to send an email outlining its findings and recommendations. The resident responded to the landlord asking that it keep her victim support officer updated about the case.
The landlord responded to the resident about her complaint about the parking dispute on 16 February 2022. It said it had written to Ms M to set out:
1. That she should not park in front of the resident’s driveway or allow her visitors to do so.
2. She should ensure her visitors did not approach or communicate with the resident.
3. That if behaviour continued it would review whether further action was required under her tenancy agreement.
The landlord said that it could not comment on Ms M’s housing status or whether she was being considered for alternative accommodation due to data protection. However, it said it was working closely with internal and external partners to resolve the issues the resident was experiencing.
On 18 February 2022 the landlord sent weekly update email to the resident. It said:
1. it was looking into purchasing the resident and Ms M camera doorbells to allow them to record from their property.
2. The new tenancy management officer (Mr P) had visited the property and met with the resident.
3. The police had provided details of its meeting with the resident.
4. It had been in contact with colleagues internally to discuss possible resolutions, but it could not discuss these with the resident due to data protection.
On 25 February 2022 the landlord sent an email to the resident about a bin dispute with Ms M, which is not the subject of this investigation. It said:
1. It had ordered camera doorbells for both the resident and Ms M.
2. It had met with the resident’s victim support officer to discuss the issues and steps the landlord had taken.
3. It was currently looking into other options but could not disclose these to the resident because of data protection.
On 4 March 2022 the landlord sent an email to the resident acknowledging her escalation request. It apologised for the delay responding to her. It said its new approach to handling complaints was taking longer than expected. It apologised for the delay and the inconvenience this may cause. The same day, in a weekly update to the resident, the landlord noted that the resident had declined to have a doorbell camera installed. It asked that she provide her reasons for this. It said it was a proven method of reducing neighbour disputes.
On 18 March 2022 the landlord sent the resident a weekly update. It said it had no update for her but wanted to assure her it was still working to resolve her concerns. The resident responded on 20 March 2022. She said she did not consider the landlord’s email to be an update. She said the matter had been going on for 5 months – since the incident on 4 October 2021. She said she was sent the same email by the landlord each Friday to “try to pacify” her. She said she found it “condescending and disrespectful”.
The landlord responded to the resident on 25 March 2022. It said that when it initially spoken to the resident about her concerns, she had said she was unhappy with the amount of contact from the landlord, and it had agreed to provide a weekly update to her. It said there would be times when there was nothing significant to update the resident about – such as if it was awaiting further information, or if it could not disclose what it had done to the resident because of data protection.
The landlord said it was working with internal teams to see if it could use other methods to resolve the ongoing issues. The landlord said it was sorry that the resident found the updates condescending and patronising. It said it was maintaining contact so the resident was aware it was continuing to manage the case.
On 31 March 2022, Mr P sent an email to the resident’s victim support officer, in response to contact from her on 29 March 2022. Mr P said he understood the impact the matter was having on the resident’s health, but that it was also considering how best it could support Ms M too.
Mr P said he was unable to disclose to the resident specific actions with regard to Ms M due to data protection. However, he said:
1. The landlord was currently in a housing suspension which was prolonging any outcome.
2. He was exploring other avenues, such as house swaps.
3. He had addressed a bin dispute between the resident and Ms M.
4. He was available to diffuse any other incident brought to his attention by either party.
On 1 April 2022, in a weekly update to the resident, Mr P said that he had spoken to Ms M and had provided a final formal warning in respect of her filming the resident, a matter that is not subject of this investigation.
On 7 April 2022 the landlord sent an email to the resident requesting a convenient time to speak to discuss her outstanding complaint.
On 13 April 2022 the landlord spoke to the resident about her complaint. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to provide a stage 2 response. It noted the resident said she was happier with this since Mr P had been managing the case.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response to her complaint on 14 April 2022. It said:
1. The resident’s complaint was about her neighbour and her visitors parking in front of her drive and acting in an intimidating way.
2. The stage 1 response of 14 January 2022 had said Ms M:
  1. was not to park, or allow her visitors to park, in front of the resident’s drive.
  2. Should ensure her visitors did not approach or communicate with the resident.
The landlord apologised for the length of time taken to respond to her stage 2 escalation request. It said it was sorry the issues with her neighbour had caused the resident distress. The landlord said:
1. It understood the resident’s request for escalation was as she did not agree the actions taken so far were sufficient.
2. Mr P, would remain the point of contact for the resident.
3. The resident had agreed that she had been happier since Mr P had been managing the ASB case and she had agreed the complaint could be closed.
The landlord said its compensation process was aimed at setting things right. It said that in line with its compensation guidelines it was making a payment of £350 to the resident, made up of:
1. £200 for the distress, time, effort and inconvenience to the resident.
2. £150 for the delayed stage 2 complaint response:
  1. £100 to recognise the delayed stage 2 decision.
  2. £50 to recognise that it did not escalate the complaint despite contact from the resident.
That day the resident sent an email to the landlord asking that it clarify whether the £350 was for the delay in responding to her complaint only. She said she wanted to be sure the award was not for the ASB she had been subjected to. In response the landlord said the award did take into consideration the distress to the resident. It said her ASB case continued to be actively managed and it was aware the resident was receiving weekly contact about this.
On 13 May 2022 the landlord contacted the resident to advise that Mr P had left and that her case had been reassigned. It provided her with a new point of contact.
The resident sent the landlord an email on 26 May 2022, referring to telephone contact the previous day to discuss her medical history. She said she was registered disabled and that the landlord had “left a victim with their attacker”.
On 5 July 2022 the resident wrote to this Service. She said she did not believe the landlord had properly responded to her complaint about the incident of 4 October 2021 during its handling of her complaint. She said the stage 2 response addressed a different issue.
On 5 August 2022 the resident sent an email to the landlord. She said she was a “victim of a crime at the hands of” another tenant of the landlord. She said the landlord wanted to “ignore or dismiss” this. The resident said the landlord could not continue to “play down” the incident of 4 October 2021.
On 19 August 2022 the resident sent the landlord a recording she said was of the police acknowledging a mistake in its handling of the incident of 4 October 2022. In response, on 25 August 2022, the landlord advised that the resident complain to the police about the matter. It noted it had agreed it would contact the police about the recording the resident had sent. However, it said only the police could decide whether it would now take action. The landlord told this Service it contacted the police about this matter but received no response. It provided no evidence of this contact.
On 5 September 2022 this Service sent a letter to the landlord following contact from the resident. This said:
1. The resident did not think the landlord had addressed the complaint she made about the handling of an incident involving Ms M in which the resident’s hand was injured.
2. It did not appear the final response of 14 April 2022 had specifically dealt with this issue.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 7 September 2022. She said she had complained to the police about its handling of the incident on 4 October 2021. The resident said Ms M should have been charged that night and that the police had “failed” her.
On 12 October 2022 the landlord sent an email to the resident. It noted the resident had complained on 7 September 2022 about its handling of an ASB report she had made. It noted that she wanted it to fully investigate the matter and take into account the mishandling of the matter by the police. The landlord said it had now looked into this matter and had noted it had already been investigated as a complaint. It said it had provided the resident with a stage 1 and stage 2 response in January and April 2022. It said it was sorry it had not responded to her complaint of 7 September 2022 within the required timeframe. In recognition of this it said it awarded compensation of £20.
Since October 2022 the issues and reports to the landlord about disputes between the resident and Ms M have continued.
On 14 February 2023 the landlord responded to a complaint the resident made about the conduct of its staff. In this it noted that it had twice met with the resident in January 2023 about her complaint and had agreed it would revisit her case as a whole. Amongst other things, the landlord said:
1. It accepted that more should have been done at the time of Ms M’s party in September 2021, and that expectations of behaviour should have been made clear.
2. There may have been opportunities to offer mediation to the resident and Ms M at this time.
3. It would have been helpful if it had set out an acceptable behaviour contractor between the resident and Ms M after it had received reports of incidents relating to the driveway.
4. Members of staff were currently undergoing ASB case management training.
The landlord awarded the resident £1,830. No aspect of this award related specifically to its handling of the resident’s report of October 2021 or its subsequent complaint handling.
The landlord noted at this time that the resident had said she was staying away from the property until Ms M was moved. The landlord said it was not in a position to move Ms M currently. It said it needed to find a way for the resident and Ms M to live alongside one and another. It asked that the resident consider mediation.
The resident has told this Service she did not believe the landlord had dealt properly with her complaint about its handling of the incidence of 4 October 2021. She said it had tried to “smudge and dissolve” one complaint into another. She said that she had sent the landlord footage of the police admitting fault in respect of its handling of the incident, but the landlord had not adjusted its stance.
The resident said that when the police had taken a statement about the incident of 4 October 2021, she was listed as “the victim” and Ms M as “the aggressor”. She said she considered this was more than enough information for the landlord to proceed with a formal warning, which believed would have led to Ms M being evicted.
The landlord has told this Service that the resident has declined mediation. It said that it considered the relationship between the resident and Ms M has deteriorated to the extent that it is unlikely a resolution will be found. It said it continues to seek a resolution through rehousing considerations. It said that it had developed and was due to implement a good neighbourhood management policy. It said this would have provided staff with guidance to better manage the case, and the resident expectations of outcomes.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The focus of this complaint is the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the incident of 4 October 2021, and her subsequent complaint about this. However, for context, it is noted that the resident and Ms M have made ASB reports about each other that remain ongoing. The resident has also made further complaints to the landlord about its handling of her other reports of ASB by Ms M, which have been considered by the landlord through its internal complaints procedure. Some of these complaint responses have been referenced in this report where they add context.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of ASB in October 2021

The landlord has a responsibility to respond to reports of ASB made by residents. The nature of the report by the resident was serious and it is apparent it had a significant impact on her. She told the landlord at the time that issues with Ms M were having a negative impact on her well-being and that she did not feel able to remain at her property.
The landlord’s records provide no evidence that it completed a risk assessment in respect of the report. It would have been appropriate for it to have done so, in line with its ASB policy. A risk assessment would allow it to consider how it should appropriately respond to the report. A risk assessment would also have helped the landlord to consider what priority the report should be treated as, and the potential harm to the parties involved.
While it noted on 6 October 2021 it was to contact the resident urgently to discuss the next steps, it did not make any contact with her about the report until 14 October 2021. The landlord’s ASB policy does state how quickly it will contact the reporting party. However, the delayed contact demonstrated a lack of regard and empathy to the situation the resident had described and the impact on her wellbeing. It was also out of line with what the landlord had noted about the need to contact her urgently.
The landlord outlined in its contact with the resident on 14 October 2021 that it wanted to speak to her to agree an action plan and discuss how it could help. In line with its policy, it was appropriate that the landlord do so. It would also have been appropriate for the consider whether it should arrange to meet with the resident to interview her about her report. But there is no evidence to indicate the landlord tried to do this, even after the resident told it that she wanted to meet to discuss her needs. That was a failing. Meeting with the resident would have provided the opportunity for the landlord to gain a better understanding the potential harm of the situation, and the vulnerabilities of the resident. It could also gone some way towards demonstrating to the resident that it was taking her report seriously, and dealing with it sympathetically and sensitivity as stated in its policy.
The landlord told this Service that it did not agree an action plan with the resident as she had stated she only wanted one action – for Ms M to be removed. But, if anything, it was even more important to do so in these circumstances. It is crucial for landlords to manage residents’ expectations. While the resident may have wanted Ms M to be removed, the landlord was aware this was a complex issue. In addition to the report by the resident, the landlord needed to consider the counter allegations made by Ms M and, as they later set out, her circumstances. Discussing an action plan with the resident would also have provided the landlord the opportunity to agree frequency of updates and potential interventions.
It is acknowledged that the landlord was seeking to understand what the police had done following its attendance. But it was also necessary and appropriate for it to consider what interventions were within its power to take.
While the landlord may not have had sufficient evidence to warrant issuing tenancy warning letters, it had a range of options available to address ASB. It was already aware of a previous incident between the resident and Ms M, and it was aware that the resident was impacted to the extent that she was staying away from the property. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider what it could do to manage the situation and prevent the dispute from escalating while it awaited police disclosure. It could have considered mediation, or whether an acceptable behaviour contract was appropriate. Its lack of consideration of action during this time demonstrated a disregard of its responsibilities under its ASB policy.
The landlord’s lack of appropriate action also meant there was a failing in its duty to seek to support the needs and vulnerabilities of the resident. Its policy set out that it should do so, but there was no contact with resident in the weeks following her report. While the landlord said it was to contact mental health service, there is no further record about this. The vulnerabilities and the needs of the resident were not appropriately considered. The resident had said she did not want to stay at the property. But there is no evidence the landlord considered whether it needed to take any actions around this until it responded to her complaint on 14 January 2022. It is acknowledged that the resident said she was staying with her sister. But consideration of these circumstances should have fed into the interventions the landlord explored and referrals/signposting to assist the resident in accessing appropriate support.
There was no apparent consideration of communicating with the resident about what her needs might be. While is noted the landlord made contact with the resident’s victim support officer, that was not until 25 February 2022. In addition, there is an absence of records in respect of this meeting. The landlord failed to provide appropriate and timely support to the resident following her report.
Aside from the landlord stating that it had spoken the Ms M to remind her to refrain from contact, of which there is no note, there is no evidence of any other intervention in relation to the incident of 4 October 2021. The landlord noted on 18 October 2021 that it was to write to both the resident and Ms M about behaviour, but it did not appear to carry out this action.
The landlord stated on 6 October 2021 that it was to request police disclosure in relation to the incident, but there is no evidence of this request or of when it received police disclosure. That is evidence of poor record keeping by the landlord. It is appropriate for landlords to keep adequate records of actions taken and contact with other agencies in its management of ASB. This helps to provide an audit trail of actions completed/outstanding and information. Without accurate records, the landlord also cannot demonstrate whether it acted appropriately and in line with its obligations.
The evidence does not clearly show when the landlord received police disclosure. As set out above that is a failing in record keeping. However, it appears that by 15 December 2021 it had received information from the police, as it made contact with the resident about the matter. This was the first evidence of contact since 14 October 2021. It is a significant failing that there is no evidence the landlord provided the resident updates about her ASB report during this time, and only limited contact until 11 February 2022. There was a lack of reasonable communication with the resident. It provides further indication of the lack of empathy and concern from the landlord about the impact of the situation upon the resident.
It is noted that the resident considered that the police had made an error in its investigation of the incident of 4 October 2021. This should not have stopped it considering interventions. But it was reasonable for the landlord to consider what the police had said about not pursuing the investigation of the resident’s allegations. It was also appropriate for the landlord to direct the resident to complain the police about her dissatisfaction about this matter. It is noted however, that the landlord had told the resident it would follow up this issue by making contact with the police. The landlord provided no evidence of its contact with the police following this. Given that it had told the resident it would do so, at the very least it would have been reasonable for it to update her about the outcome of its attempt to contact the police. That it did not do so was a failing.
There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s ASB report. It failed to use the tools and powers available to consider appropriate timely interventions following the resident’s report. It failed to take appropriate steps to keep the resident updated and to communicate with her to consider appropriate support and signposting. That was a detrimental impact to the resident who had outlined on 6 January 2022 that she had no faith in the landlord, and felt it had done nothing while she was bullied out of her home.
While the landlord offered the resident £200 for the distress, time, effort and inconvenience to the resident. This does not adequately address the impact of the landlord’s failings. In addition, the landlord provided no clear explanation of what this sum had been awarded to recognise. With consideration to the landlord’s compensation policy, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and the circumstances of the case a further award has been ordered.
It is apparent that issues between the resident and Ms M remain unresolved. The landlord met with the resident in January 2023 to review her ASB case. It stated that she had since declined its offer to arrange mediation. This Service is also aware that the landlord is currently considering a complaint from the resident about ongoing ASB issues.
In July 2023 this Service published a special report in respect of the landlord. This recommended that the landlord should complete a review of its ASB policy and procedures and that it design and roll out associated staff training. It is also noted that the landlord is due to implement a good neighbourhood management policy. In light of this, an order has been made aimed at ensuring that failings identified in this report have been addressed by this review/training and the new good neighbourhood management policy.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response explained it was awaiting police disclosure, and that it would consider tenancy enforcement action if necessary. But it did not identify or acknowledge failings to consider interventions, or in it support and contact with the resident about her report. That was a missed opportunity to rectify earlier short-comings. The stage 1 response was several days outside timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. It is noted the landlord contacted the resident in advance to notify her of this, but it would also have been reasonable for the landlord to also acknowledge and apologise for this delay when providing its eventual response.
The resident subsequently raising her dissatisfaction with the handling of the report, and the landlord noting the complaint needed to be escalated. Despite this the landlord’s stage 2 response, which was more than 7 weeks outside timescales set out in its complaints policy, responded to the wrong issue. While it referred to the stage 1 response of 14 January 2022, it addressed and quoted from its response to the resident about a driveway dispute. That was a significant complaint handling failing. It showed a lack of care, understanding and insight by the landlord about the issues the resident remained unhappy with. Despite the resident and this service questioning whether the landlord had responded to the resident’s concerns in respect of her October 2021 reports, the landlord maintained it had done so. If it had appropriately reviewed its complaint response at this time the mistake should have been apparent. It meant that the landlord failed to provide an adequate stage 2 response to the resident about this issue. That is a detrimental impact to the resident compounded by its failure to rectify the mistake even when it was pointed out.
While it was appropriate and clear why the landlord had awarded the resident £150 compensation for the late response to her complaint, its reasons for making an award of £200 remain unclear. In its complaint response, aside from the delayed complaint response it had not identified failings. Awards of compensation should be clearly explained and linked to acknowledged failings. Without this the payment lacks meaning and is unlikely to address issues and provide a satisfactory resolution for the resident. That is evidently the case here. The resident appeared confused as to what the landlord was making the award for. Its stage 2 response to the resident appeared to be aimed more at shutting down the complaint than addressing, acknowledging and learning from any mistakes or failings.
There was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s complaint. It failed to respond appropriately to the stage 2 complaint by addressing the incorrect issue. It further failed by awarding compensation without clearly linking it to a failing. The resident has undoubtedly experienced frustration and additional time, trouble and inconvenience as a result of these complaint handling failings. The landlord’s award of £150 appropriately addresses the 7-week delay in providing the stage 2 response, but this does not fully recognise the complaint handling failings identified in this report. A further award has been ordered to recognise the impact of the failings upon the resident.
The Ombudsman’s special report of July 2023 made a number of recommendations to the landlord around its complaint handling. This included that it:
1. Ensure the quality assurance checks on complaint responses to both residents and the Ombudsman are in place.
2. Complete the planned roll out of refreshed complaint handling training and design a programme of regular periodic refresher training.
In light of these recent recommendations, it is ordered that the landlord review the complaint handling shortcomings identified in this report and ensure that steps it is taking will appropriately address the failings identified in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of ASB in October 2021.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord failed to consider appropriate intervention following receipt of the report from the resident. It did not complete a risk assessment, an action plan or agree steps it would take to update the resident. It also failed to communicate with the resident to establish support it could provide/signpost or keep accurate records of actions and information received from outside agencies.
The landlord’s complaint responses were delayed and it stage 2 response failed to address the correct issue. It failed to correct this even after it was pointed out. It also awarded compensation without explaining the basis for the award, causing confusion for the resident.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this investigation in its handling of ASB reports and the resident’s complaint.
2. b. Make a total payment to the resident of £1,150, comprised of:
  1. £700 in respect of the adverse effect of the failings in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports. This includes the amount of £200 previously awarded.
  2. £450 in respect of the adverse effect of the failings identified in its complaint handling. This includes the amount of £150 previously awarded by the landlord.
  3. The sum of £350 previously awarded by the landlord should be deducted from the total if it has already been paid to the resident.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Review the failings identified in this report in respect of its handling of the resident’s ASB report and ensure these have been addressed by the recent reviews/training and the new good neighbourhood management policy.
2. Undertake a review of its ASB record keeping in order to ensure accurate records are maintained of actions taken and information received from outside agencies.
3. Review the complaint handling short-comings identified in this report and ensure that steps it is taking will appropriate address the failings identified in this case.