Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Octavia Housing (202001154)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001154

Octavia Housing

21 January 2021


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 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:

  • reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB);
  • requests for installation of additional CCTV and
  • requests for information regarding his service charges.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner and the lease agreement is dated 6 October 2017. The landlord has described the property as a self-contained 4th floor flat; the flat is based within a block that has shared facilities such as a lift with communal entrances and hallways.
  2. The landlord has advised that it is a leaseholder of the property with the communal areas owned by a freeholder and communal services being provided by the freeholder’s managing agent. The managing agent charges for these services and those charges are passed onto the resident by the landlord.
  3. Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that a leaseholder has a legal right to view supporting documentation at any time within 6 months of receiving a service charge bill.
  4. The lease agreement allows for the landlord to calculate ‘Service Provision’ charges prior to the Account Year as an estimate of what is likely to be incurred. The landlord must determine and certify actual expenditure ‘as soon as practicable after the end of each Account Year’.
  5. The lease agreement states that the landlord covenants with the resident so that he ‘may peaceably enjoy the premises’.
  6. The landlord has an Anti-Social Behaviour and Neighbour Disputes Policy that shows it commits to speaking to residents within 24 hours if they report a Category A incident (including, selling drugs and illegal use of premises) or 3 working days if they report a Category B incident (including, vandalism and people in groups causing a nuisance).

The Policy sets out a range of actions available to it, including involvement of the Police, asking the alleged perpetrators to sign an Acceptable Behaviour agreement, tenancy warnings and legal action. It also states that the landlord will agree an action plan when ASB is reported.

The documents add that:

‘We will only close the case when the Anti-Social Behaviour has stopped or we cannot find sufficient evidence to take further action.’

‘The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 gives victims of Anti-Social Behaviour the right to request a Community Trigger, a review of their case which brings agencies together to find a solution. Victims can use the Community Trigger when there have been at least three complaints of Anti-Social Behaviour in a six month period and there has been no adequate response. Our partners in the local authority are the first point of contact for anyone who wants to use the Community Trigger. We will work with local authorities and other partner agencies, and we will be responsive to the findings of any review.’

  1. The landlord has an Anti-Social Behaviour and Neighbour Disputes Procedure that requires it to maintain contact with the complainant weekly (for Category A cases) or fortnightly (for Category B-C cases) and to regularly review ASB cases (monthly for Category A cases and ‘sample audits’ for Category B-C cases).
  2. The landlord has a CCTV Policy that states it ‘uses CCTV images to provide a safe and secure environment for staff, volunteers and visitors and to protect Octavia’s property.’ This policy requires the CCTV equipment to ‘produce clear images of a high quality, (ie of a standard that would be capable of having evidentiary value to the police)’ and ‘work effectively 24 hours per day, 7 days a week.’
  3. The landlord has a Complaints, Compliments and Feedback policy that shows it has a 2-stage complaints process. The landlord is required to issue Stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days of the complaint. The Stage 2 complaint can be considered by either a Senior Manager (within 10 working days) or a Complaint Panel (the Panel is required to meet within 30 working days and issue the written outcome within 10 working days of the meeting).
  4. The landlord also has a Compensation Policy that states it can award compensation where it recognises ‘that there are other circumstances where residents are significantly inconvenienced as a result of our service falling short, and we will make gestures of goodwill as guided by this policy and its related procedure.’

 

Summary of Events

  1. The Ombudsman is only able to consider matters which have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure (in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme). This is so that we can be sure the landlord has had a reasonable opportunity to resolve the issues internally before we intervene. Therefore, this Service cannot make determinations on the handling of new events that have arisen since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure in November 2019.

ASB Reports and CCTV

  1. The landlord’s ASB Action File recorded that the landlord opened an ASB file on 6 December 2018, initially setting up a door knock exercise and requesting information from the Police.
  2. The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 December 2018 – he reported an incident of finding litter associated with smoking the day before and that he had seen people smoking on a flat balcony. He suggested CCTV be installed to deal with this. The landlord replied on 1 January 2019 to confirm that temporary CCTV was to be installed pending the option of hard-wired CCTV that was being explored with the managing agent. The landlord recommended that the resident report incidents to the Police.
  3. The landlord has provided a copy of a letter that was sent to all residents in the block on 9 January 2019 – it highlighted recent ASB issues that had been reported to it, including smoking in communal areas. The letter contained a warning of potential enforcement action and asked residents to report ASB to the Police.
  4. The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 January 2019 – he reported smoking and drinking having taken place at the bottom of a communal stairwell on 10-11 January 2019. The landlord acknowledged the report on the same day – it informed the resident that it believed it had identified an alleged perpetrator and further updates would be provided.
  5. There are email exchanges between the landlord and the local authority as early as 15 January 2019 where the landlord raised ASB concerns about the block with the ‘Public Protection and Licensing’ team at the local authority.
  6. The landlord’s ASB Action File recorded that the landlord completed the door knocking and liaised with a witness on 17 January 2019.
  7. The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 January 2019 – it formally acknowledged his ASB reports and confirmed that an ASB case file had been opened. It provided an ASB Action Plan document that confirmed it had already contacted the Police, carried out a door knocking exercise, met with the managing agents and that it would consider installing temporary CCTV devices.
  8. The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 February 2019 – he advised this was in reply to the landlord action plan letter he had received. He expressed dissatisfaction with the plan as he thought it was insufficient as the ASB had been ongoing for over a year. He suggested use of CCTV evidence, DNA testing, fingerprint testing and footprint testing to identify perpetrators.
  9. The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 February 2019 to advise that a section of wall had again been vandalised on 23-24 February 2019 and there were remnants of smoking of drugs left behind on the same stairwell. The resident asked that the recently installed temporary CCTV be checked.
  10. The landlord’s ASB Action File recorded that the landlord carried out a joint visit to the block with the Police on 25 February 2019.
  11. The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 February 2019 to report incidents of ‘a person or persons’ smoking drugs in communal areas of the block on 25 February 2019 and 27 February 2019.
  12. The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 March 2019 to report an incident overnight the day before where he had witnessed a group of young people smoking and drinking in the communal areas of the block. He identified one of these people as a resident of the block. He also raised a concern about the temporary CCTV cameras now not working. The landlord acknowledged the report on 5 March 2019 – it confirmed that it would look at CCTV images to see if a resident could be identified and explained the reasoning for the temporary cameras being used instead of fixed CCTV.
  13. The resident’s MP submitted an enquiry to the landlord on 6 March 2019 as the resident had reported continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of ASB. The landlord replied to the MP on 17 March 2019 – it stated it had taken measures such as installation of temporary CCTV, liaison with the managing agent and meeting with the resident at the block. It characterised footage from its own cameras as showing residents going about their business with no ASB incidents seen. It added that the managing agent had been asked to check its own CCTV but would not share this with the landlord. It promised to review footage again and write to residents of the block with a general warning.
  14. The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 April 2019 to report an incident of 3-4 April 2019 where a wall (on the landing between the ground and first floors) had been kicked in. The landlord replied over the following days to advise that it would be viewing its own CCTV and asking the managing agent to do the same.
  15. The landlord approached the managing agent on 24 April 2019 to ask for CCTV footage of the area by the bike store to be reviewed in light of an ASB incident. The managing agent replied on 8 May 2019 and advised that it would not be able to provide the footage to the landlord for Data Protection reasons. This approach was challenged by the landlord on 14 May 2019.
  16. The resident reported an incident of possible prostitution on 17 May 2019. He added that permanent CCTV cameras were needed in the bottom of the stairwell and in the stairwell itself as the temporary cameras were not working. The landlord raised this incident with the managing agent on 21 May 2019 and again asked for footage to be reviewed. The managing agent replied the following day to report that the footage had been considered but the incident reported by the resident could not be viewed from the CCTV cameras.
  17. The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 May 2019 to formally complain about the landlord’s handling of his ASB report. The resident asked for proper CCTV to be installed to all communal areas and for communal doors to have functioning locks. He added that the landlord should act against flats involved with ASB.
  18. The landlord’s ASB Action File recorded that the landlord noted video evidence on 29 May 2019. The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 June 2019 – it advised that useful images had been found (although a recommendation for additional CCTV was made) and joint actions with the Police would follow. Its Action File notes that it conducted a home visit to an alleged perpetrator on 14 June 2019 and wrote to an alleged perpetrator on 11 July 2019.
  19. In the meantime, the landlord issued its Stage 1 complaint response on 7 June 2019. It partly upheld the resident’s complaint and concluded that:
  • it had found it difficult liaising with the managing agent and was still challenging their decision that CCTV footage could not be passed over for Data Protection reasons
  • it had not been pro-active enough in reviewing its own temporary camera CCTV footage but when it had done so, no individuals had been clearly identified
  • some identification progress had been made very recently and it intended to install fixed CCTV cameras (with no installation cost to residents)
  • it was seeking a solution to a damaged second entrance door
  • security patrols had been introduced
  • service charges should have been reviewed sooner but it was working on advocating residents’ interests and hoped to arrange a meeting with homeowners and the managing agent in attendance

Escalation rights were offered but the resident advised on 22 June 2019 that he was satisfied with the actions proposed.

  1. There was an internal landlord review on 7 August 2019 that indicated it had reviewed the ASB case file and noted that it had not received further reports since it visited the alleged perpetrator. A case closure letter was sent to the resident on this date.
  2. The resident chased the landlord on 4 September 2019 – he requested an update on the installation of CCTV. He subsequently reported that damage had occurred to the bike store door between 3-5 September 2019.
  3. A neighbouring resident in the block reported an incident on 5 September 2019 of a 2nd floor resident smoking drugs on the stairway in the block – this had not been reported to the Police but the landlord discussed this internally and concluded on 16 September 2019 that the Police had not ‘flagged’ that they had information on this alleged perpetrator and that evidence would be needed for enforcement, particularly given the circumstances of the household in question.
  4. The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 September 2019. He asked for his case to be heard by the Stage 2 Complaints Panel – he stated that the landlord had not taken actions promised in its letter of 7 June 2019 and that ASB had continued. The landlord noted within internal emails on 17 September 2019 that they were still in a position where evidence against alleged perpetrators was not held.
  5. The landlord advised the resident on 17 September 2019 that it was seeking permission from the managing agent for present CCTV cameras to be linked to its own system together with new cameras that were to be installed.
  6. The resident sent a chaser email on 25 September 2019 and complained that he had received no reply to a request for his ASB and service charges concerns (see paragraph 44) to be heard by the Stage 2 Complaints Panel.
  7. The resident reported an incident on 4 October 2019 of a group of young people smoking drugs at the bottom of the stairwell. The landlord replied to the resident on 8 October 2019 – it acknowledged the report but advised it could only ask the managing agent to review the footage. Its ASB Action File recorded that it visited the block with the local authority on 9 October 2019.
  8. The landlord again raised the issue of being able to view footage with the managing agent on 10 October 2019 and 30 October 2019 – this was specifically in regard to an issue that occurred on 4 October 2019 but also the general need to work in a co-ordinated way with the local authority and the Police to resolve the ASB issues.
  9. Internal landlord emails from 20 October 2019 show that a security patrol witnessed anti-social behaviour by a group of young people in the stairwell but the perpetrators ran away and could not be found by them or the Police. The perpetrators were not recognised to be residents of the block.
  10. The landlord’s ASB Action File recorded that it carried out a joint visit to the block on 24 October 2019 and interviewed an alleged perpetrator on 28 October 2019.
  11. The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 November 2019 to provide him with the outcome to the Stage 2 Complaint Panel Hearing on 20 November 2019. The landlord concluded that:
  • it was unreasonable that the resident had to submit a complaint before effective action on installing CCTV was started
  • the range of actions it took in response to ASB were reasonable
  • service charge information was not provided to the resident in good time

The landlord committed to:

  • complete the CCTV installation by 31 December 2019 (in the meantime, security would patrol the building 4pm-6pm daily)
  • write to all residents to warn them that CCTV recordings would be passed to the Police or used for tenancy enforcement
  • review progress with the resident and report back to the Panel by June 2020
  • provide the resident with contact details of the landlord’s Board Chair
  • provide the resident with assistance in analysis of final service charge bills to support his challenge to First Tier Tribunal
  • compensate the resident £100

Escalation rights to the Ombudsman were offered.

  1. Internal landlord emails between October 2019 and February 2020 show that the landlord had decided to install new CCTV cameras in the ‘stairwell to the basement bike stores’ and to connect existing 3rd party cameras to its own system. These emails indicate that CCTV cameras had been installed during December 2019 but a ‘Timebox’ and broadband requirement meant that they were not remotely accessible until at least June 2020.
  2. There were additional incident reports by the resident between December 2019 and November 2020. These again related to reports of smoking of drugs and damage caused to property by groups congregating in communal areas. Further details of these reports have not been included for consideration here as this investigation is concerned with issues that have progressed through the landlord’s complaints procedure. However, the landlord has evidenced that it took the following steps from February 2020:
  • signposted the resident to the ‘Community Trigger’ process in February 2020
  • met with the Police in February 2020
  • made unannounced visits to the block, reviewed CCTV footage and conducted a home visit in March 2020
  • undertook a CCTV review in July 2020
  • prepared a new ASB Action Plan in November 2020 that included liaison with the managing agent, a walkabout with Police, letters being sent to all residents to remind them of security and consideration of installing more CCTV

Service Charges

  1. The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 January 2019 to query why the monthly service charge estimate payable was about five times higher than that which was in the landlord’s Memorandum of Sale from June 2017.
  2. The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 January 2019 to dispute the level of charges within demands sent on 22 January 2019. The resident stated that these were unreasonably high and that there was not enough evidence to justify the amounts demanded. A variety of breakdowns relating to the managing agent fee were requested by the resident and concerns over value for money (in regard to handling of ASB and cleaning for example) were raised.
  3. The landlord acknowledged this correspondence on 28 January 2019 – it stated that it would reply in detail but, in the meantime, would make arrangements for the invoices forming the 2017/18 costs to be made available. There were further delays in these being made available as the landlord apologised on 26 February 2019 that it had still not provided this information – it stated that this was due to staff changes.
  4. The resident wrote to the landlord on 23 March 2019 to query an increase of £120 per month in his Direct Debit that he assumed was due to an increase in service charges. He requested an explanation for this increase and assurance on what the landlord had done to ensure value for money. He referred back to the outstanding dispute over the 2017/18 service charge and asked for an explanation before the increased Direct Debit commenced.
  5. The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 April 2019 (as part of an email exchange about ASB) – it advised that its role was only to check the service charges from the managing agent were fair and reasonable. It added that it had queried the 2019/20 service charge estimate increase and concluded this was due to a re-evaluation of the buildings insurance. A meeting was offered to the resident so the breakdowns could be considered further.
  6. The landlord approached the managing agent on 8 May 2019 and sought an explanation for the sharp increase in service charges.
  7. The landlord updated the resident on 4 June 2019 to advise that it was still following up with the managing agent as there were questions about the increase other than the issue of buildings insurance. The landlord’s Stage 1 complaint response followed on 7 June 2019 (see paragraph 30) that included reference to service charges – it acknowledged that it should have reviewed these sooner and promised a meeting.
  8. The resident chased the landlord on 4 September 2019 to request an update on the issue of service charges.
  9. The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 October 2019 – he advised that he would be taking the matter of service charge demands to the First Tier Tribunal.
  10. The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 November 2019 and provided ‘invoices in list form that made up the managing agent charges’.
  11. The landlord’s Stage 2 Complaint Panel response on 28 November 2019 (paragraph 41) acknowledged that it had failed to provide service charge information to the resident in good time. It promised to assist the resident with analysis of final service charge bills and awarded £100 compensation.
  12. The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 May 2020 to state that it had been chasing information from the managing agent about actual service charges. Some invoice information was provided for the periods ending 31 December 2018 and 31 December 2020 but the landlord admitted these were not particularly helpful as they were for a wider geographic area rather than the resident’s block. It was acknowledged by the landlord that it had been several months since the Stage 2 Complaint Panel but that, as a leaseholder itself, it had no other recourse to obtain the further details it was seeking from the managing agent.

Assessment and findings

ASB Reports

  1. The Ombudsman considers complaints about how a landlord has responded to reports of a problem. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the alleged perpetrators amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
  2. It is not disputed that the landlord opened a formal ASB case file in December 2018 and that it took almost 2 months for the landlord to write to the resident with an Action Plan – this was inappropriate as it was outside of the landlord’s own ASB policy which required it to meet with the resident within 24 hours. The landlord also failed to respond directly to the concerns the resident raised about the Action Plan in February 2019. However, in the meantime, it did acknowledge specific incident reports that the resident made and began to implement actions such as liaising with the Police, liaising with the local authority, installing temporary CCTV cameras, door knocking and liaising with the block managing agent – these were all reasonable actions to take and reflect the Ombudsman’s experience of similar cases across the social housing sector as appropriate actions to take when managing ASB.
  3. The landlord reviewed its actions in March 2019 (when responding to the resident’s MP). Although it has not provided evidence that it subsequently formally reviewed the ASB case on a monthly basis as is required for Category A cases, its records show that actions were taken each month in the case between December 2018 and May 2020 – there were no lengthy periods of inaction where the landlord failed to progress the case. Similarly, although the landlord has not evidenced that it strictly maintained fortnightly contact with the resident in line with its ASB procedures, it consistently acknowledged new incident reports in a timely way and the contact between the landlord and resident was regular.
  4. The landlord reviewed its actions again in June 2019 as part of its Stage 1 complaint response. It agreed that the resident should not be subjected to the types of behaviour he had reported and explained the difficulty it had experienced in obtaining CCTV footage from the managing agent. It highlighted though that it had already commenced a security patrol at the block and made recent progress in identifying alleged perpetrators. It identified that there had been occasions where it had not been pro-active enough in checking its own CCTV footage but that when it had done so, perpetrators had not been identified. It added that it would be installing fixed CCTV cameras and would not re-charge residents for this installation. This demonstrated that the landlord was resolution-focused and willing to use its discretion and resources in attempting to reduce ASB.
  5. Based on the evidence provided to this Service, there were no ASB reports between June and August 2019. The landlord reviewed the ASB case in August 2019 – it closed the case and sent a closure letter to the resident, signposting him to make further contact if the problems recurred – this was appropriate and in accordance with its policies.
  6. The resident reported further incidents in September and October 2019. In response to these reports, the landlord re-opened the ASB case file and noted that it visited the block, liaised with the Police and local authority, contacted the managing agent and interviewed an alleged perpetrator. These actions were again reasonable responses to the ASB reports received.
  7. The landlord reviewed its handling of ASB in November 2019 as part of its Stage 2 Complaint Panel response. It did not uphold the complaint as it stated that it had taken a range of actions in an effort to resolve the ASB – it referred to writing to all residents in the block, interviewing certain individuals and working with the managing agent and Police. Although the landlord did not uphold the complaint, it was reasonable for it to explain to the resident the actions it had taken and promise to follow up with a report to the Panel in June 2020 and a letter to all residents in the block.
  8. In summary, the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s allegations of ASB were appropriate and in line with its policies and procedures. It attempted to obtain evidence of the ASB (and identify whether any of its own residents were involved) by requesting managing agent CCTV footage and by installing its own CCTV. It also conducted visits to the block, implemented security patrols, reviewed its own CCTV footage and interviewed and wrote to alleged perpetrators. It took a multi-agency approach to the problem by making pro-active contact with the Police and the local authority and sharing information with them throughout the periods where the ASB case file was open. The landlord has recorded that there was a lack of conclusive evidence to link the ASB to households within the block, despite CCTV footage reviews, and it was therefore reasonable that no formal enforcement action was undertaken.

CCTV

  1. The landlord advised the resident in January 2019 that it would consider installation of CCTV cameras. It is not disputed that temporary cameras were in place at least by February 2019 which was within a reasonable timescale and demonstrated that the landlord had taken the resident’s reports seriously.
  2. However, faults with the temporary cameras were reported by the resident in March 2019 and, by this point, it was also apparent to the landlord that the managing agent would be unwilling to share footage with it for Data Protection reasons. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to challenge the managing agent on the sharing of footage (as it did in May 2019 and October 2019), it was not until June 2019 that it confirmed to the resident that it would be installing fixed CCTV cameras – this was an unreasonable delay.
  3. Although the landlord advised the resident of the intention to install fixed CCTV in June 2019, this was still outstanding when the matter was reviewed as part of its Stage 2 Complaint Panel in November 2019 – this was a further unreasonable delay as the landlord has acknowledged.
  4. Fixed CCTV cameras were installed by the landlord in December 2019 in line with the recommendation within its Stage 2 Complaint Panel response but there was a further delay in these being fully operational until June 2020 when the broadband facility to allow remote viewing was established. This further delay was unreasonable although the landlord has demonstrated that, in the meantime, it continued to review CCTV footage by other means (as it has noted that it did in March 2020).
  5. Although the landlord apologised for the delay in installing fixed CCTV cameras within both of its complaint responses in June 2019 and November 2019, it failed to award compensation. The landlord’s Compensation Policy allows for it to offer a financial offer of goodwill and it would have been reasonable to have awarded compensation given its failure to follow through on the promise it made to the resident through the complaints process in June 2019. The further delay of 6 months by the landlord after June 2019 meant that the resident felt he again needed to chase progress which caused him unnecessary time and trouble.

Service Charges

  1. The Ombudsman does not investigate complaints that relate to the level of service charges. These disputes are more effectively resolved by application to First Tier Tribunal and, based on correspondence exchanges seen by this Service, the resident is aware that this recourse is open to him. However, this Service can consider whether a landlord has responded appropriately to a resident’s request for information about their service charges.
  2. Landlords have a legal duty to make information about service charges available to residents and the Ombudsman expects a landlord to respond in a timely manner to information requests about service charges, to provide information that it would reasonably be expected to make available upon request and to investigate any reports about poor levels of service provision. In this case, there is an added complication in that the landlord is not the freehold owner of the block and does not manage the communal services for which the resident pays a service charge.
  3. The resident initially raised concerns about the level of service charges in January 2019 given the level of the 2017/18 costs in comparison to the information he stated was supplied to him during the process of him purchasing the property. Based on the evidence seen by this Service, the landlord has still not provided the resident with a clear explanation for this discrepancy, suggesting at various times that it may be due to a building insurance re-evaluation but that there were other questions on the level of charges. This was unreasonable as, although the landlord has explained it does not calculate the service charges, it should have investigated and offered an explanation to the resident’s concerns about the increase in service charge levels.
  4. The landlord acknowledged in its Stage 1 complaint response in June 2019 that it should have reviewed the service charge levels before it did and proposed a meeting. The offer of a meeting was reasonable but this Service has not been provided with evidence that further information was offered to the resident until November 2019 – this was a further unreasonable delay.
  5. The landlord again acknowledged the delay in its provision of service charge information to the resident in its Stage 2 Complaint Panel response in November 2019. It upheld the complaint, promised to assist the resident in analysis of final service charge bills on receipt and awarded compensation of £100 – while these steps and the compensation award were appropriate, this Service has not been provided with evidence of how it has assisted the resident in analysis of final service charge bills.
  6. It is of concern that the landlord had to write to the resident in May 2020 to acknowledge that it had still not been able to obtain detailed information about the actual service charges some 6 months after the Stage 2 Complaint Panel response promised to offer support to him. It was only able to explain to the resident in May 2020 that it had again chased the managing agent and that accountants had signed off the 2017/18 expenditure, so a formal demand was to be provided soon. Whilst it is not disputed that the landlord may not be in full possession of the information requested, given its statutory obligations as a landlord and the potential impact on its residents, the Ombudsman would expect it to be able to demonstrate that it had escalated this matter with the managing agent and within its own organisation and to evidence how it has considered action available to it under the terms of its own lease with the freeholder.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports about ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s:
  • requests for installation of additional CCTV and
  • requests for information about his service charges.

Reasons

  1. The range of actions taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s ASB reports were appropriate. There were no significant failings by it in its handling of the reports and it has evidenced that it took proportionate steps to investigate and address ASB.
  2. The landlord delayed in its installation of fixed CCTV cameras for 9 months after the temporary CCTV was reported to be faulty and failed to award compensation when it reviewed its handling of the matter.
  3. The landlord has delayed unreasonably in providing service charge information to the resident and has not demonstrated that it has explored options available to it other than simply requesting information from the managing agent.

Orders

  1. The landlord to take the following actions within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
  • Pay compensation of £100 to the resident in recognition of the impact of its delays in installing fixed CCTV cameras.
  • If it has not already done so, write to the resident providing the requested service charge information. If it is unable to do so, it should write to the resident (and this Service) to explain why, advise how it intends to meet its  obligations to provide the requested information and provide a specific timescale of when it expects to be able to do so.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
  • Write to the resident to update him on its progress in carrying out the November 2020 ASB Action Plan, including the outcome of its consideration of additional CCTV
  • If it has not already done so, update the Stage 2 Complaints Panel on progress as was promised in its November 2019 complaint response