Longhurst Group Limited (202123260)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123260

Longhurst Group Limited

31 May 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) directed against her.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
3. Response to the resident’s reports of a spider infestation at the property.
4. Response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of garden maintenance expenses.
5. Complaint handing.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (The Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a reimbursement of garden maintenance expenses.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that: “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”.
The resident has complained to this Service about the financial burden the maintenance of the garden has caused her. However, there is no evidence that these aspects of his complaint have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and so they are outside of our jurisdiction to consider in accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme. If the resident would like to pursue this aspect of her complaint, she should initially raise it with the landlord and complete the internal complaint process.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and the tenancy began in late 2014. The property is a three-bedroom house. There is a note on the repairs records about the resident being vulnerable but there is no further information on the tenancy file.
The tenancy agreement states that the resident must deal with any pests such as fleas, rodents, ants or wasps infesting their home.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord would complete an appointed general repair within 21 working days.
The landlord operates an ASB policy. It states:
1. In responding to complaints and allegations of ASB the landlord will:
  1. Work in partnership with the police, local authorities and other partner agencies to respond effectively to reports of ASB;
  2. Provide a supportive and safe environment to customers to encourage reporting of ASB and make reporting accessible and easy;
  3. Treat people fairly and sensitively during its investigations and base its response on the evidence available;
  4. Assess the vulnerability of customers (complainants and respondents) and offer assistance if appropriate and available, including a referral to its safeguarding team if appropriate;
  5. Encourage customers to resolve their disputes amicably by communicating with each other and offer mediation where appropriate;
  6. Be realistic with the response that it is able to offer;
  7. Ensure customers are made aware of the terms and conditions of their tenancy agreement and of their responsibilities in relation to ASB.
2. It will respond to non high risk ASB within 5 working days. It will provide a named officer and a case reference number. The landlord will also conduct an initial assessment.
The landlord’s complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (The Code) state that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the landlord, it’s colleagues or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual customer or a group of customers.
The landlord’s complaints policy has an informal stage and two formal stages. At stage one it aims to respond within 10 working days and at stage two within 20 working days.
The landlord operates a compensation policy. It states:
1. Awards of £250-£700 range may be awarded where the landlord failed over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with its policy – for example to address repairs; to respond to antisocial behaviour; serious failures but which have already been recognised and resolved by landlord, including redress for actual financial loss.
2. Where dehumidifiers are supplied and instructed by the landlord to be used, compensation of £2.22 per day would be considered for the increased cost of energy.
There have been multiple reports of ASB made by the resident and at times, during the investigation, these have been referred to as ‘complaints’ rather than as reports of ASB.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.

Summary of events

The resident stated that she had started reporting issues related to damp and mould in early 2015. However, this service has seen no evidence of such reports.
According to correspondence between the landlord and the local authority, the resident made a complaint about damp and mould, ASB and spider infestation to the local authority on 16 April 2020. This service has seen no evidence of this correspondence.
On 23 April 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident asking for further details about ASB incidents between the resident and the neighbours from address A. The landlord said that it would call the resident on 28 April 2020.
On 28 April 2020 following an attempt to call the resident, the landlord wrote further that it would like to discuss the concerns the neighbours had raised and the resident’s reports to the local authority environmental protection department.
The resident responded the same day. She stated:
1. She had informed the landlord of her telephone number being changed earlier in the year.
2. She had had issues not only with the neighbours from address A, but from B, C and D (both C and D not the landlord’s tenants). These were ongoing issues. The neighbours were destroying her peace, verbally abusing her, throwing rubbish in her garden and “taking her privacy away”. The neighbours at address C were banging on the doors day and night and at A and B were playing loud music. The resident took the matters in her own hands by responding with loud music and shouting.
3. The neighbours at C and D were revving their motorcycles and the resident had contacted the local authority already. All the neighbours were working “in a team” to make the resident’s life “a misery”.
4. The resident had asked to borrow cameras but she had been told by the landlord, the local authority and the police that she could not have any.
5. The situation was “beyond mediation” and the resident was rather owed an apology from “these people”. The landlord was not doing anything but “continuing to buy this peoples lies”. For 13 years in social housing, the resident had experienced nothing but “problematic vile neighbours”.
6. She had complained to the local authority about the spiders when a nest hatched 40/50 baby spiders in her son’s bedroom. On a normal day, her household saw an average of 20 spiders.
7. The damp was a huge problem. She had reported it shortly after she had moved in, but the landlord had not supported her. She started recently using dehumidifiers and this had contributed to additional cost.
8. The ivy that the landlord had promised to remove from the neighbours at C address had not been removed.
On the same day, the landlord requested information from the local authority’s environmental department about the matter. The local authority informed the landlord that:
1. The recent reports relate to refreshed neighbour disputes, spider infestation and damp and mould.
2. Previously, they had dealt with similar issues related to noise, trespassing and motor revving. They had explained the process, provided a noise app and advised the resident on how to take her own case of statutory noise nuisance.
3. There had been various complaints raised by the resident but her reports were not substantiated with any evidence. The resident refused to use diary sheets and, while the noise recorder had been at her property for weeks, no evidence had been obtained.
4. It was difficult to establish what the resident wanted as an outcome. The local authority had suggested to support her with a managed moved but the resident had refused as she did not want to divulge her medical record.
5. The spider infestation was a newly raised issue. They did not treat for spiders, but could only identify them if supplied with a sample.
6. They had visited the resident’s property and established that the damp was due to how the resident was living at the property which “she sealed up and did not ventilate”. There had been no evidence of raising damp and only minimal mould on the windows due to condensation.
7. However, they recommended an extractor fan to be installed in the bathroom.
8. With regards to the ASB reports, they further said that as the resident had repeatedly made reports without any evidence and the neighbours complained, they considered using their vexatious policy.
In further correspondence between the landlord and the local authority:
1. The landlord agreed to investigate the brickwork gaps and deal with the ivy in order to resolve the spider issue. There is no evidence to confirm that this was completed.
2. The local authority advised that the resident did not want the extractor fan installed as she believed it would not help. As there was only a bit of condensation reported, the landlord agreed not to force her if she did not want it.
3. The landlord also stated that this was not a damp issue and as such it would not do more. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident was updated about the landlord’s conclusion about the damp issue.
The landlord wrote to the resident that it would investigate all the angles of her complaint and respond.
On 7 May 2020, the local authority closed the resident’s complaint about the neighbours at address A and B due to the resident’s “unwillingness” to cooperate and provide evidential information in a manner requested by the local authority. They informed the landlord about the case closure.
On 12 May 2020, the resident wrote further to the landlord complaining about neighbours from addresses A, B and C. The resident informed the landlord that she would not be bullied any longer and would respond to the neighbour’s action with reciprocal ones. When the neighbour threw rubbish, the resident would throw it back. When the neighbours were revving their motorcycles, the resident would play loud music.
The landlord forwarded the reports to the local authority, which responded that running a motor cycle for ten minutes in a four week period would not constitute a statutory nuisance from noise or fumes. However, as things were escalating, they would inform the community safety team. The landlord intended to provide a noise app after discussing the issue with both parties involved in the ASB.
On 3 June 2020, in further correspondence between the landlord and the local authority, the local authority confirmed:
1. There were no further reports following the closure of case from 7 May 2020.
2. As there was not any supporting evidence provided, they were also closing the complaint related to the neighbours at address C.
On 16 June 2020 and 23 June 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident about its intension to close the complaint due to no evidence and further reports. It arranged a telephone call, but the resident was not available when the landlord called.
On 26 June 2020, the landlord confirmed to the resident in writing that it had tried to contact her over the phone and discuss the ASB case further, and particularly the final options of noise app or mediation. It offered the resident to accept one of these two. It also informed her that it would be closing the case as it would not be able to assist any further or offer anything different without supporting evidence.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 10 February 2021. She stated:
1. She had been complaining about ASB for a while.
2. This week she had noticed that the window seals were damaged. This had caused damp penetrating into the double glazing. The seals to two windows and the front door needed to be replaced.
3. The drain in the back garden was also “all of the sudden” blocked. She did not have any proof that this was due to ASB issues but it seemed “far too coincidental”.
4. The neighbours also kicked her bins to the path after the bins had been emptied during week collection and as such blocked the path.
5. The resident wanted the landlord to take her ASB reports seriously and provide visual and sound recording equipment.
On the same day, the landlord sent its acknowledgement, but this Service has seen no evidence that the complaint was responded to. The landlord said:
1. It would respond to her ASB enquiry by sending a member of its housing team within 2 working days. There is no evidence that this was followed up on.
2. The resident should report the repairs to the drains and the seals to its repairs contractors.
According to the repairs logs, the issues related to the drain, the windows and the front door seals were raised on 16 March 2021. The drainage issue was marked as completed on 19 March 2021. The windows and front door seals were attended twice on 22 April 2021 and on 4 May 2021, but no access was provided.
On 7 June 2021, following correspondence with the landlord’s income team, the resident raised again the ASB issues. The landlord wrote to the resident and suggested visiting the property and discussing the matter further. In order to make the necessary arrangements, the landlord asked the resident to call back at a convenient time.
Following the landlord’s visit, an extractor fan was fitted in the bathroom.
On 2 July 2021, the landlord’s repairs log evidences that a repair was raised about the recently installed extractor fan not working properly. The same day, the landlord’s records evidence that the window seal issue was raised again and marked as completed on 18 August 2021.
In September 2021, the landlord replaced the extractor fan and installed an extractor unit in the bathroom loft. A few weeks later, the resident reported that she had stopped using the dehumidifiers after the extractor units were installed but the extractor fan and the unit on their own were not efficient and mould was growing.
On 23 November 2021, the resident raised another formal complaint. She said:
1. There had been damp and mould at the property since she moved in.
2. She was using two dehumidifiers but she was no longer able to pay the extra costs. The filters cost her £10 for each dehumidifier per month.
3. The surveyors and the housing officers had failed her. A surveyor had come in July and had recommended the extractor units to be fitted. However, they did not do enough to remove the damp and she had to still run the dehumidifiers. She had reported insufficient work of the extractor fan and unit three weeks after their installation, but had not heard from the contractors.
4. There was spider infestation at the property.
5. The resident was dissatisfied with the handling of her ASB reports in the past. She was complaining about four families, two of which were the landlord’s tenants. The situation was still ongoing and, despite her reporting the issues to the landlord, the local authority and the police, nothing was done. The neighbours damaged her property, blocked her drain, threw dead animals into her garden, revved motorbikes, organised loud parties and banged on walls.
6. The police had put up some cameras in her back garden. However, the resident spent around £600 on a security system which she wanted refunded.
On 10 December 2021, the landlord made an attempt to attend the extractor fan repair but access was not provided.
The resident called on the same day to ask for any repairs to be booked in advance as she had severe anxiety. On 13 December 2021, the resident called again to report that the operatives were turning up unannounced. The resident would like to be called on her landline as she did not have any mobile. The landlord’s record shows that it forwarded both requests to its subcontractors.
The resident later asked the landlord to delete her contact number from its database.
Some additional repairs to the bath tap and panel were reported in December 2021 and marked as completed on 5 January 2022.
On 23 December 2021 the landlord issued its stage one response. It said:
1. It could not identify any repairs orders raised related to damp and mould prior to 2021. However, it had seen an email related to ASB where the resident had mentioned condensation due to a blown window.
2. Following a housing officer visit in June 2021, the landlord had arranged for a surveyor who had recommended a new double glazed unit and an extractor fan to be installed. Shortly after they were installed the resident had reported issues with the extractor fan. On 1 and 2 September 2021, the landlord had replaced the extractor fan and had installed an extractor unit in the loft.
3. The landlord admitted delays and apologised. It also apologised for the unannounced visits from the operatives, which happened twice in December 2021. It said it would monitor any future repairs closely so that any follow-up visits are attended with notification.
4. It awarded a compensation of £100 for delays and inconvenience and a further £60 to cover cost of dehumidifier filters.
On 4 January 2022, the resident escalated her complaint. She said:
1. The compensation offer was insulting. The running cost for the dehumidifiers was over £1,000 but she would accept £1,000. She could not provide receipts but would provide photos of the dehumidifiers.
2. The extractor fan had never worked correctly and was not fit for purpose.
3. The landlord had failed to resolve the ASB and she had to buy recording equipment. As such she would like £500 refund for it.
According to the landlord’s records, the window sealant was further raised on 14 January 2022 together with the front door seal.
On 17 January 2022, the landlord responded at stage two of its complaints process. It stated:
1. It confirmed its position stating that the damp and mould were not reported prior to 2021. With regards to the extractor fan, mould treatment and spider infestation, the landlord would contact the resident further by post as per her request for a desired contact.
2. The repairs to the bath tap and panel reported at a later stage had been already completed.
3. The double-glazed unit would be changed on 25 January 2022 and the resident should ensure she was at home for this appointment.
4. It awarded a further £300 for the purchase of the dehumidifiers and further £50 for their running costs.
5. It found no service failure in dealing with the ASB complaint. It had provided the correct advice about the neighbours at address C who were not its tenants. The case was referred to multiple agency meetings and details of a noise app were provided. However, the resident did not provide any further evidence as requested. The police also had confirmed that it was looking to withdraw due to no evidence.
6. The landlord also explained to the resident that her request to not allow them to contact her by phone, text or email made it difficult to confirm appointments and asked for a different means of contact so that the appointments were much swifter. There is no evidence this was provided to the landlord.
The works to the double glazing were attended on 25 January 2022, but due to no access that day were carried out on 15 February 2022.
The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman’s formal investigation on 21 March 2022. The resident said:
1. The ASB had been ongoing and the situation had escalated. Following hours of continuous banging on the wall from the neighbour at the address C, the resident banged on their door and went inside. The neighbours denied this in front of the police. The resident was cautioned.
2. The landlord had not done much. The previous year, it had only offered a noise app which was not fit for purpose. The app could only capture 30 seconds after turned on. However, “the banging, hammering, drilling and other noise nuisance were not consistent and very random and unpredictable” for the resident to be able to catch.
3. The landlord had been harassing her with “aggressive and threatening” letters.
4. The resident was dissatisfied with the level of compensation and the landlord’s handling of her damp and mould reports. She had reported the mould issue to her housing officer in 2015. Then in 2020 she reported it to the local authority whose measurements had shown that there was damp but the levels were not high enough. The resident had been running dehumidifiers at the time but not in the room which had been measured. The resident could provide pictures of the dehumidifiers or show them to the surveyor.
In August 2022 the resident further reported issues with the neighbours and the noise app not being fit for purpose. However, as the resident was complaining about the neighbour who was not the landlord’s tenant, the landlord explained to her that it could only advise the resident on how to progress her case with the council and support her with the evidence. During this time as per the resident request the landlord was only able to contact her through the post.
In the following months the resident continued reporting various issues to the Ombudsman about her neighbours from all four properties and the repair contractors related to:
1. Neighbours taking part of her garden by installing a new fence.
2. Throwing rubbish into her garden.
3. Shouting, banging and abusing her and her son.
4. Cutting tree branches and as such destroying bird nests.
5. The landlord’s unannounced visits related to repairs.
On 17 October 2022, the landlord advised the resident that the spider infestation was her responsibility.
In more recent correspondence, the resident advised that:
1. She was still experiencing issues with her neighbours related to cutting tree branches and fence issues.
2. She was still experiencing unannounced visits from contractors despite her request for 24 hour’s notice.
3. She was dissatisfied with the financial burden and the anxiety the garden maintenance was causing her.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint 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 this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from various neighbours

According to the correspondence between the landlord and the local authority in April 2020, the issues related to ASB the resident and her neighbours reported had been raised in the past. Whilst there is no evidence of how they were previously dealt with, it is not disputed that that the ASB allegations and counter allegations had resumed.
There is evidence that the landlord opened an ASB case in a timely manner, and within the timescales of its policy. It requested further information from all the parties involved in the ASB reports. It also requested further details from the local authority. The landlord was in regular communication and was responsive to the issues raised by the resident and her neighbours. The neighbour’s reports were investigated and the landlord tried to manage the resident’s expectations with regards to her various allegations. It offered mediation and a noise app in line with its policy. It additionally communicated its intentions and findings with the local authority before making a decision to close the ASB complaint. These were appropriate steps to take in order to investigate and respond to the ASB reports.
However, the resident continued reporting issues with her neighbours and in February 2021, she raised a formal complaint about her neighbour’s further ASB. She also raised concerns about property damage which she suspected to be anti-social issues. The landlord acknowledged her reports and said that it would respond within 2 working days but there is no evidence it did so. There was a considerable delay between these reports and the landlord contacting the resident in June 2021, when it visited her property. Whilst the first case was reasonably closed due to no evidence, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate any further reports in a timely manner. According to its policy, the landlord should respond and open a case within five working days of the resident’s reports. This was not done.
As such, the landlord did not demonstrate that it was responsive to the resident’s ASB reports in 2021 or that it had reviewed the evidence provided by the resident. While some of the issues were historic or repeated, these were new reports raised related to new events. In these circumstances, it would have been reasonable and in line with its policy for the landlord to open a new ASB case, conduct a risk assessment given the resident’s vulnerabilities and investigate the issues.
Additionally, the landlord was aware that the local authority considered that issues between the neighbours were escalating. Given the resident’s condition, which she reported to be related to anxiety, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide support and clear communication of the next steps it could take in line with its policy.
Despite the historic issues between the neighbours, the landlord should raise a new ASB case for any reports of new events, investigate and follow its ASB policy. It failed to do so or to identify those failures in its complaint responses. As such it did not put things right or try to prevent any escalation of the issues. For the above reasons there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
Considering the inconvenience and the frustration these failures caused to the resident, in addition to the orders made below about the landlord’s learning, compensation of £350 has been ordered to put right these failures.

Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property

While the resident reported that her initial damp and mould reports were from 2015, this service has seen no evidence to support this. According to the landlord’s records the resident reported the damp and mould issue in April 2020 initially to the local authority and then directly to the landlord.
The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of the local authority’s investigation. However, the local authority initially informed the landlord that the damp had been related to life-style and condensation. It is noted that both the landlord and the local authority experienced difficulties in identifying how to deliver the resident’s desired outcome of resolving the damp. While the local authority advised the landlord that an extractor fan would resolve the issue, they also said that the resident was not willing to get the fan installed as she believed this would not help. Hence, the landlord did not take any action to further investigate the damp issue or install a fan. Whilst it was reasonable for it to accept the findings of the local authority specialist environmental team, it would have also been fair for the landlord to contact the resident directly in order consider if there was anything further it could do to mitigate the damp issue.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould from October 2021 recommends that the landlord should avoid taking action that solely places the onus on the resident. The landlord should evaluate what mitigations it can put in place to support residents in cases where structural interventions are not appropriate and satisfy itself it is taking all reasonable steps. Saying this it is appreciated that the events of the complaint were prior to issuing the Spotlight report.
Following the resident’s further reports of June 2021, the landlord inspected the property and installed an extractor fan in the bathroom within reasonable time. This was reported later as not working and the landlord replaced it and also installed an extractor unit in the loft. As per the landlord’s record, the repair was completed in a timely manner. The landlord’s approach here was appropriate and in accordance with its repairing obligations.
Following additional reports of the fan not being fit for purpose, the landlord made an attempt to visit the property in December 2021 but there was no access provided by the resident. At the time, the resident also reported unannounced visits from the contractors. This service has seen no evidence that the extractor fan and the extractor unit has been further inspected or repaired.
In its final response, the landlord accepted there had been failures, related to delays and unannounced appointments. It apologised and offered compensation totalling £510, comprised of:
1. £100 for inconvenience and delays
2. £60 at stage one, and additional £50 at stage two for running costs of the dehumidifiers.
3. £300 for the purchase of the dehumidifiers.
The landlord also asked its repair contractors to provide 24 hour’s notice to the resident prior to visiting her property. It also put a note on its repairs log that she was a vulnerable tenant.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and details of lessons learned) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This service will also consider the resulting distress and inconvenience and the resident’s circumstances will be taken into account.
While the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of the inspection report from June 2021, it is not disputed that the landlord carried out the works related to damp and mould, and particularly the installation of bathroom extractor fan and loft extractor unit. It additionally carried out further works to the bathroom reported at a later stage. However, it failed to follow up on the resident’s last report from September 2021 about the extractor fan and unit not being effective.
It is appreciated that the landlord’s communication with the resident was affected due to her requirement of contact by post. Whilst it made a considerable effort to complete the repairs, it has not demonstrated that the mould and damp was thoroughly investigated. Additionally, the unannounced visits were reported as ongoing and as such it did not demonstrate that it monitored its contractor’s performance closely.
For the above reasons, the Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property. Hence an order was made below to reflect these findings. An order of additional £100 is also made to reflect the landlord’s failure to further inspect the effectiveness of the extractor fan.

Response to the resident’s reports of spider infestation at the property

The resident had been reporting the issues related to a spider infestation since April 2020. Whilst the tenancy agreement does not particularly refer to spiders, it explains that the resident must deal with any pest infestation. As such the landlord does not have any responsibility to deal with the resident’s reports and its response from October 2022 was reasonable.
However, in its correspondence to the local authority from April 2020, the landlord committed to check the brickwork and deal with the ivy in response to the spider infestation reports. This Service has seen no evidence of this being relayed to the resident or any action taken. The spider infestation was then raised as a formal complaint in November 2021. While there is no obligation to the landlord to deal with the infestation at the property, it would have been reasonable to explain this to the resident in a timely manner and to follow up on its commitments to the local authority.

Complaint handing

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, because:
1. The resident raised a formal complaint initially on 10 February 2021. This was not acknowledged as a complaint but rather as a report of ASB. As such the landlord did not act in line with its policy and the Code, which states that any expression of dissatisfaction should be considered as a formal complaint.
2. When a further complaint was raised on 21 November 2021, the landlord delayed its stage one response by 12 working days of what its policy allows. Its stage one response was issued on 23 December 2021.
3. It did not follow up on the final response to further update the resident about the fan and the mould treatment issues.
4. In its final response, it only addressed the issues the resident raised about one of the neighbours, who was not a landlord tenant, and failed to include its consideration of the reports related to the other three neighbouring households.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. Its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Its handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of spider infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a reimbursement of the garden maintenance expenses is outside of jurisdiction.

Reasons

The landlord failed to open an ASB case in relation to the new events reported by the resident in 2021. As such it failed to conduct a risk assessment and consider the resident’s vulnerabilities. Whilst it had provided a noise app and did not have enough evidence form the historic reports, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate those new issues raised and prevent further escalation. As such it failed to provide clear plan of action.
Whist the landlord was initially responsive to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, it had considerably delayed its action. It did not demonstrate that it had put things right and inspected the fan and the extractor unit further or communicated any survey findings with the resident. It also failed to monitor closely the performance of its contractors, and particularly related to unannounced visits.
The landlord failed to recognise a complaint and then delayed its response at stage one. In its final response, it failed to recognise those failures. Additionally, it failed to address in full its ASB handing and any failures related to those. As such it failed to put things right and learn from the outcomes.
The landlord has no responsibility to deal with spider infestation. However, it is noted that its communication to the resident was considerably delayed.
The resident’s request for a reimbursement of garden maintenance expenses has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to arrange for a senior member of staff to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to visit the resident and take a full account of the ASB issues experienced, conduct a risk assessment and plan of action. A copy should be provided to the Ombudsman.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to arrange for a surveyor visit to inspect the extractor fan and carry out a further mould inspection. The surveyor report and any plan of action to be clearly communicated to the resident and a copy to be provided to the Ombudsman. If any further repairs are required related to damp and mould, these should be completed within eight weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident compensation totalling £1210. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation should be reduced by the already offered £510. As such the compensation comprises of:
1. £510 already offered at the end of the landlord’s process.
2. Additional £350 for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident caused by the landlord’s handling of the ASB complaint.
3. Additional £100 for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ongoing damp and mould at the property.
4. Additional £250 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of its complaint handling failures.

Recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this reports, it is recommended that the landlord inspect the brick work to the property and the ivy and report its findings and any next steps if required to deal with the spider infestation to the resident and this service.