North Northamptonshire Council (202309097)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309097

North Northamptonshire Council

27 February 2025

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 how the landlord handled the resident’s:
1. housing applications.
2. reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. reports of vandalism.
4. reports of mould and outstanding repairs.
5. reports of flies coming from his neighbour’s property.
6. complaint.
This report has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman 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.j. of the Scheme, the following complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. how the landlord handled the resident’s housing applications.
Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
The resident stated in his stage 1 complaint that the landlord had misled him about the suitability of the property when it was allocated and he wanted it to review its decision, and review the priority it had awarded to him. In its response, the landlord disagreed that it had misled him and stated that it had made him aware of past issues with the property when he first viewed it.
We can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996), which includes transfers made by local authority residents. It also sets out the circumstances where reasonable preference must be given to certain applicants, when making decisions about offers of properties. The reasonable preference criteria include applicants threatened with homelessness, living in unsuitable conditions and who need to move on medical or welfare grounds.
When a council allocates a property through its social housing waiting list, it is executing its wider public functions. The waiting list is subject to statutory oversight, which dictates how a council can award priority on the waiting list, the situations it can allocate social housing to applicants, and how it deals with review requests. As the council and not the landlord manages the waiting list, it is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate the suitability of the property the resident was allocated or make orders regarding the level of priority the resident may be awarded.
Since the resident’s transfer requests fall within Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996 they cannot be reviewed by the Housing Ombudsman. As a result, this aspect of the complaint is better suited to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). If the resident remains dissatisfied he is able to pursue his complaint with them.

Background and summary of events

At the time of the complaint, the resident lived in a one bedroom, ground floor flat, which he had occupied from November 2022. He was a secure tenant of the landlord. The records show that he had several physical and mental vulnerabilities of which the landlord was aware.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 December 2022 to say that the block it had placed him in was having a detrimental effect on his health conditions. He stated that there were people “constantly banging the doors during the night” and leaving them open so people could “come in to do drugs”. He added that the police had visited the block “numerous times” and that someone had carved offensive words on his front door. He stated that he was “struggling to cope with the stress” of the situation. The landlord responded on 5 December 2022 and said that it:
1. was only aware of 2 occasions when the police had attended the block.
2. had advised the resident when he viewed the property that there had been previous instances of youths accessing the block, but it was not aware of any recent issues. He should contact the police if non-residents entered the building so they could be removed.
3. had sanded out the offensive words on his door at the earliest opportunity as it was aware this would have a detrimental effect on his mental health.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 23 February 2023. He said that:
1. the previous evening there were “around 15 people in the shared hallway entrance to the block”. They were banging the wall outside his living room and standing by his entrance trying to “intimidate” him and asking people if they wanted to buy drugs.
2. he had “lost count” of the number of times the police had been out to the block.
3. the previous week there was blood “smeared” over intercom and there was still some left one of the buttons. He was at “seriously high risk” of infection as he had been taking immunosuppressants.
4. he had reported that his spy hole was broken but the landlord had still not repaired it.
5. the key cylinder on his front door had become “very stiff to lock”.
The landlord responded on 1 March 2023 to say it had tried to call him to discuss his concerns. It asked him if he had reported the “unwanted visitors” to the police and confirmed it had chased up the repair to the spy hole and raised jobs to look at his lock and re-sand the writing on his front door. It is unclear when the resident sent the landlord a recording of young people “causing nuisance in the local area”. However, on 31 March 2023, the landlord thanked him for sending the recording. It said that, if the children belonged to its tenants it “may be able to take some action” but that he should call the police “in the first instance”.
On 12 June 2023, the resident called the landlord to raise concerns over the tenant who lived above his property. He said he had an infestation of flies, which were coming out of the extractor fan. He added that his neighbour had not been removing any rubbish from her flat. On 13 June 2023 he wrote to it to say that, “for the past month” his neighbour had “lain dead” above his lounge. He stated that he had been asking the landlord for some time to do a welfare check.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 21 June 2023 to report a number of issues he wanted to raise as a complaint. He stated that his issues were about the landlord’s handling of:
1. ASB, drug use and harassment from neighbours.
2. vandalism to his property.
3. his request to review the suitability of his property and his banding.
4. outstanding repairs.
5. events involving a neighbouring property.

This Service contacted the landlord and asked it to investigate the resident’s concerns as a stage 1 complaint.

The resident called the landlord on 26 June 2023 regarding the death of the tenant above and said he was “shaken up” by the experience and the amount of flies in his property. He wanted to know when the landlord would attend to treat the infestation. On 21 July 2023, the landlord sent him its stage 1 response. It stated that:
1. he had made “several telephone calls” stating that people were using the communal areas for potential drug dealing. However, he had been unable to give any specific addresses of those causing the ASB.
2. it had advised him to contact the police as soon as non-residents congregated in the communal areas. The police had advised it that they would “attend immediately” and remove any non-residents from the building.
3. since he had moved in, it had not received any reports of drug dealing from other residents or the police.
4. other than the graffiti on his front door, it was unaware of any reports of vandalism to his property.
5. it had received only 2 repair requests since he moved in and removed the obscene graffiti from his front door on 29 November 2022. It had attended on 1 March 2023 to repair his spy hole and stiff door lock but had been unable to access his property.
6. with regard to his late neighbour, it had liaised with the police who attended on a number of occasions to complete welfare visits. Despite the best efforts of the agencies involved, the matter “escalated tragically”. It recognised the impact those events had had on him but did not believe it could have done anything more to prevent them from happening.
7. since the events in the neighbouring flat, he had complained that there were “an excessive number of flies and maggots” in his property. It had therefore placed him into hotel accommodation until it could arrange for the infestation to be treated.
8. it had completed the treatment on 13 July 2023 and partly cleared the flat above. It would review whether any further treatments were needed after it had undertaken a full clearance of the neighbouring property.
9. much of the ASB he had reported was associated with a former tenant and had “largely ceased” by the time the resident had moved in.
10. it did not agree that he had been misled about the suitability of the property.
The resident responded to the landlord on 9 October 2023. He stated that:
1. the response he received was “poorly worded” and “hardly” made sense. It failed to convince him that the landlord had taken his concerns seriously.
2. he had reported the ASB issues to the police despite the landlord’s claims he did not. He had crime reference numbers to prove this.
3. the landlord had misled him on the suitability of the property. On viewing it, he had noticed boarded up windows and a burnt spy hole. When he asked about ASB or any issues in the block, it told him there had been “some trouble with kids in the block” but that it had stopped.
4. within a week of moving in, he had people at his door with knives, carving obscene words into his front door. Following this, “kids were continuously breaking into the block, wedging the secure doors open, smoking drugs… kicking all the doors in, banging the walls, swearing and making a lot of noise”.
5. he had reported repairs in November 2022, but the landlord only completed them in August 2023, despite him raising a complaint. It had not been told of any attempts to attend to the repairs other than leaving a card through his door at 8am.
6. the tenant above passed away and had been there for “over a month”. He had tried calling the landlord around March 2023 to ask for a welfare check is done. By the time it had carried out a welfare check his neighbour had already passed away.
7. he ended up with “multiple fungus gnats” coming down from the flat above and going up his nose in his sleep. The landlord “finally” placed him in a hotel for a few days. The landlord never came to see how the residents were coping.
8. he had also realised there was serious mould issues in the property, which added to all the other problems and aggravated his health conditions.
9. he wanted the landlord to escalate his complaint and to be compensated for the impacts on his health and damage to his belongings.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 17 October 2023. It issued its stage 2 response on 12 December 2023. In this, it stated that:
1. it acknowledged there were “some grammatical errors” in its stage 1 response but did not agree it made it “difficult to understand”.
2. there had been issues with youths entering the block but this “was largely resolved” when it upgraded the door entry system. The police had not made it aware of any reports since the resident moved into the property.
3. it had discussed his first welfare concerns with the police, who confirmed his neighbour was “safe and well at the time”.
4. it had arranged temporary hotel accommodation for him while it carried out pest treatments. It confirmed that its pest controller had not found any evidence of an infestation.
5. it had made a referral for him to the council’s housing options team as it was concerned about the impact of his housing situation and the death of his neighbour was having on his mental health. It confirmed that it had accepted a housing duty towards him, and he had since found alternative accommodation.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 6 September 2024. He said that he was not happy with the landlord’s stage 2 response. It had not addressed his concerns about mould in his property, which was “the major problem”. He stated that the landlord had told him there was nothing wrong with the property but 4 people had already moved out within a year. He added that it had “lied” in its response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told us that his health has been negatively affected by the landlord’s delays in responding to his reports. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. These matters are more appropriately addressed through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether any failings by the landlord have been the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Reports of ASB

When considering complaints relating to ASB, it is not the role of this Service to reach a decision on whether the behaviour has occurred as reported. Our role is to consider whether the landlord has responded to the reports in accordance with its policy and in a manner that is fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances. As such, our assessment will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, if it took proportionate action, and followed good practice.
The landlord has an ASB policy that aims to:
1. tackle ASB promptly and effectively on our estates using appropriate and proportionate interventions.
2. protect residents, prevent ASB and promote sustainable communities.
3. encourage and develop partnership working with a variety of agencies in order to prevent and reduce ASB.
4. provide clear and consistent information about how we will respond to complaints of ASB.
The same policy outlines the actions the landlord will take in responding to ASB reports. The include:
1. contacting residents at least every 2 weeks to review the progress of the case.
2. carrying out risk assessments at the start of the case and at critical stages throughout.
3. taking reasonable and proportionate action in a timely manner.
4. putting target handling measures in place if required.
The Ombudsman’s ASB expectations for landlords state that an ASB policy should contain steps for creating the fundamentals of an effective response, including action plans, clear communication, risk assessments, and working with third party agencies.
The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 statutory guidance states that “the relevant bodies should use their risk assessment procedures as part of the decision on whether the threshold is met” It goes on to say that, “even where the threshold is not met, local agencies may wish to consider the possibility of hidden needs or risks which may require a response from a particular agency”.
The landlord has provided limited records of correspondence with the resident regarding his ASB reports. However, we have seen emails the resident sent on 1 December 2022 and 23 February 2023. His reports stated that non-residents were congregating in communal areas. He said that people would “constantly” bang the doors during the night and “hang around inside the corridors”. He also reported that on 1 occasion there had been “around 15 people in the shared hallway entrance to the block”. They were “banging the wall” outside his living room and standing in the way of the entrance to his flat. The resident told the landlord that this made him feel intimidated and prevented him from attending important hospital appointments.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident “made several telephone calls and enquiries” stating that “people were using the communal areas…potentially for drug dealing”. It has not provided any telephone logs or notes from any of those calls or enquiries. This is poor record keeping. However, it does suggest the resident had reported the matter on a number of occasions.
The records show that the landlord had advised the resident that whenever non-residents congregated in communal areas, he should contact the police so that they could be removed. There is evidence it contacted the police to check whether the resident had reported any incidents and to ask if they could carry out any “extra patrols in the area”. This demonstrates it was working with partner agencies in line with its ASB policy .
However, it is unclear whether the landlord had followed the matter up with the resident, or whether the police had responded to its request for additional patrols. The landlord could have considered carrying out its own unannounced visits to the block to establish the extent of the problem. It could also have spoken to neighbours to gather evidence and check whether other tenants were being similarly affected. This would have given the resident some reassurance it was taking the matter seriously.
Furthermore, there is no indication the landlord considered if any specific target hardening measures would have been appropriate in the circumstances. The resident’s reports show that non-residents were able to enter the block. The landlord could have explored whether there were any additional security measures it could have put in place to prevent them from gaining access. The resident stated that some neighbours were leaving communal doors open. The landlord could have sent letters to all tenants or put up notices reminding them to ensure they left all communal doors shut. It could have also considered prioritising the upgrade it later made to the door entry system. The landlord has not demonstrated it took all reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns about non-residents using the communal areas or to provide him with adequate reassurances about his safety. This caused him ongoing distress and inconvenience because it added to his anxiety about going through the communal areas to get to his medical appointments.
There is no evidence the landlord opened an ASB case following the resident’s reports, or carried out a risk assessment. Given it was aware of his vulnerabilities, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have completed a risk assessment. This would have helped it identify the impact the ASB was having on him and how it was affecting his enjoyment of the property. It could have helped it establish whether there was any appropriate support it could provide, such as signposting him to Victim Support or other relevant support services. That it could not demonstrate it had opened an ASB case or considered carrying out a risk assessment was a failing, and a departure from its ASB policy.
Furthermore, the landlord’s decision not to open an ASB case for the resident prevented it from exploring appropriate actions it could have taken to support him. There is no indication it had asked him to complete a diary of incidents or that it had considered agreeing an action plan with him. This may have further supported the resident and the landlord in gathering evidence through the use of diary sheets and allowed it to appropriately monitor and review the situation to ensure it was taking appropriate action.
A comprehensive and meaningful action plan would also have been an opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations in terms of what it was able to do and to set realistic objectives. It could also have been a way of discussing any reasonable adjustments it could make and to assign a single point of contact for the resident to approach for updates or seek clarification on the actions it was taking. The lack of a clear plan was a missed opportunity for the landlord to maintain regular contact and offer reassurance it was making all reasonable efforts to respond to his reports.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. We apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified. In its complaint responses, the landlord did not acknowledge its failings, offer any redress or make any attempt to learn from the outcome of the resident’s complaint. We have therefore made a finding of maladministration and will order that the landlord pays the resident some redress in line with our Remedies Guidance.

Reports of vandalism

The records show that there was one incident of vandalism on the resident’s property, where someone had scratched offensive words into his front door. However, it is evident this happened before he had moved in and that the intended target had been the previous tenant. The evidence shows that the resident made the landlord aware of the vandalism on the day he moved in, which was 28 November 2022. The landlord acted appropriately by reassuring him that he was not the intended target and by covering the words with tape before sanding the door. The evidence also shows that it took timely action to address the vandalism by removing the offensive words on 29 November 2022. This demonstrates it was being mindful of the impact it was having on the resident’s mental health. The landlord therefore took reasonable action to respond to the resident’s reports of vandalism on his property.
Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint. This was because the landlord acted promptly and considered the resident’s vulnerabilities. However, it is unclear why the landlord had not become aware of this itself prior to the property being let.

Reports of mould and outstanding repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy has 24-hour response time for emergency repairs. It aims to complete urgent repairs within 10 working days and states that it will complete routine repairs within 35 working days.
In line with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the tenancy agreement states that the landlord will repair the structure, exterior and interior fixtures and fittings of the property. The landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect this, such as volume and complexity of required work, or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
The landlord’s repair log shows that the resident reported 3 repairs while he was living in the property. On 12 January 2023, he told the landlord that the spy hole on his front door was cracked, and he could not see through it. On 1 March 2023 he reported that his front door lock had become stiff when trying to lock it and that the obscene words on his door were “becoming prominent again” since the landlord had sanded it down on 29 November 2022. The evidence shows that the landlord completed all the repairs on 24 July 2023, several months after the resident had reported them.
The landlord stated in its stage 1 response that it had attended on 1 March 2023 to complete the repairs but that operatives were unable to gain access. It said it had left a card asking the resident to contact it to rearrange the appointment. It added that it subsequently made several “ad hoc visits” and then closed the jobs down due to lack of access.
The resident is obliged under the terms of the tenancy agreement to provide access to the landlord and its contractors to investigate and complete repairs. The Ombudsman accepts there can be many reasons why it may not be convenient for the resident to allow work to go ahead. However, it is evident the landlord’s difficulty in gaining access to the property impacted its ability to complete repairs. However, the resident stated that the landlord had only made one attempt to carry out the repair.
The landlord has not provided any evidence to show when it had made the ad hoc visits, how many it had made, and whether it had left any messages to say it had visited. It is also unclear whether the landlord tried to contact the resident to rearrange the repairs. Given the landlord was aware he had various vulnerabilities affecting him both physically and mentally, it would have been reasonable to have made further attempts to contact him to make a new appointment before closing the jobs. That it did not was a failure to assess whether it needed to alter its usual approach to non-access in light of the vulnerabilities it was aware of.
Furthermore, making ad hoc visits without giving residents prior notice cannot be reasonably considered a failure by the resident to provide access to the property. That the landlord put the onus on him to make contact and rearrange the repairs demonstrates a lack of customer focus and a failure to properly consider his individual circumstances. The landlord cannot evidence it had made reasonable efforts to work proactively with the resident to ensure the repairs were completed in a timely manner. This was a failing.
The Service’s spotlight report entitled “Damp and Mould. It’s not lifestyle”, published in October 2021, states that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords. They should take a zero-tolerance approach, be proactive in identifying potential problems and clearly communicate to residents about actions. Where inspections result in recommended works to tackle condensation, damp or mould, landlords should ensure they act on the recommendations in a timely manner. Any deviations from the recommendations should be clearly documented and explained to the resident.
In the records the landlord has provided, the first time there is mention of mould in the property is on the form from the landlord’s 9 month visit on 23 August 2023. It states that an inspector attended the previous week to look at the mould and that the property was “awaiting treatment”. Following this, the resident mentions in his escalation request (9 October 2023) that his flat had an issue with mould.
The landlord has not provided a copy of an inspection report or any details from the visit. The extent of any mould present in the property is therefore unclear. Furthermore, it has not provided any details of whether a mould treatment took place and, if so, when it was completed. Its repair log makes no mention of any works to treat mould. We cannot therefore conclude the severity of the mould and whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports.
That the landlord was unable to demonstrate it properly actioned the resident’s concerns regarding mould was therefore a failing. In making a finding of maladministration we have taken this and the delays in completing repairs into account.

Reports of flies coming from his neighbour’s property

The evidence shows that sometime around May 2023 the resident had reported flies coming from the flat above. He also raised concerns about his neighbour’s welfare. It is unclear from the records on which day he made those reports. However, internal correspondence shows that the landlord visited the block on 11 May 2023 in response to the resident’s reports of an infestation. The records show that the police had also carried out a welfare check on his neighbour on the same day.
There is evidence that the resident called the landlord on 12 June 2023 to raise concerns about his neighbour above him. He stated they were not removing rubbish from their flat and that this had resulted in him having a fly infestation in his property. He asked the landlord to carry out a welfare check on his neighbour.
It is evident the landlord visited the neighbour on 14 June 2023. An internal record from the visit states that the neighbour did not answer the door. The officer opened the letterbox to let the tenant know they were there and stated they “could see some rubbish but no flies and there was no smell” coming from the property. The officer met the resident that day and told him they were visiting his neighbour at his request. It then sent his neighbour a letter on 19 June 2023 saying it would carry out a further visit on 28 July 2023. The landlord stated in its stage 1 response that it had liaised with the police who had carried out a number of welfare visits to his neighbour’s property. It is not clear from the records when the police discovered the resident’s neighbour had passed away.
It is noted that the events were of great distress to the resident. However, the evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable steps to respond to the resident’s concerns about his neighbour’s welfare. It liaised with the police, carried out its own welfare checks and kept the resident updated about the actions it was taking. It also responded in a timely manner to the resident’s request to carry out a welfare check.
Furthermore, the records show that the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of a fly infestation in his property. It moved him into temporary accommodation until its pest control contractor was able to treat what it found to be “a small number of flies” in his property on 13 July 2023. This is evidence that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities by altering its ordinary approach to this type of report.
However, there is no evidence the landlord had checked up on the resident following the death of his neighbour or that it had reached out to him to discuss whether there was any emotional or mental health support he may need following the incident. He had told the landlord on 26 June 2023 that he had been “shaken up” by the experience. Given it was aware that his vulnerabilities included PTSD and anxiety, it should have taken reasonable steps to ensure he could access or be signposted to the appropriate support. That it cannot demonstrate that it had properly considered the resident’s vulnerabilities following the incident with his neighbour amounts to a service failure. We will order that the landlord pays the resident £100 in recognition of the impact this had on him, in line with our Remedies Guidance.

Complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will:
1. acknowledge stage 1 complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days.
2. respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days from the date it is acknowledged
3. or, if it cannot respond within this time, an additional 10 days. It will contact the resident with an explanation of why it needs the additional time.
4. respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that any extension must be no more than 20 working days without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident.
We asked the landlord to investigate the resident’s complaint on 21 June 2023. There is no evidence it sent him an acknowledgement. Furthermore, it sent its response on 21 July 2023, which was 23 working days later. It took 47 working days for it to issue its stage 2 response. There is no record of any attempt by the landlord to update the resident or explain why its responses were delayed. The responses had exceeded the time limits in the Code and its policy. It further departed from the Code when it failed to notify the resident of its delay and provide a new timescale. Its poor communication likely caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience.
The Code requires landlords to undertake thorough complaint investigations and to address all aspects of a complaint. In his escalation request, the resident raised concerns about mould in his property. The landlord made no mention of this matter in its stage 2 response. Given the records show the landlord had inspected the property for mould, it is unclear why it had not addressed this issue. That the landlord failed to reply to this aspect of the resident’s complaint was a departure from the Code.
The Code also states that at the completion of stage 2, landlords must give details of how to escalate the matter to us if they remain dissatisfied. The landlord failed to do this in its stage 2 response. The landlord’s cumulative failings, including its poor communication and protracted complaint handling was maladministration. For this reason, we will order the landlord to pay £200 to the resident, in line with our Remedies Guidance, to put things right.

Record keeping

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
As referenced frequently throughout this report, the landlord’s record keeping was poor. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) states that “good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission…If information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information”. It further states that a landlord’s failings to create and record information accurately results in it not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
The evidence the landlord provided to this Service in response to our requests for information was severely lacking in detail. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, as this assists the landlord in fulfilling its obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the progress of ongoing repairs or ASB investigations at any given time to be able to provide updates to residents. Records also enable outstanding issues to be monitored and provide an audit trail of actions, including any delays that were outside of its control. Effective record keeping means landlords are also able to carry out effective investigations when things go wrong.
In this case, the landlord has failed to keep appropriate records. Overall, the quality of the evidence supplied by the landlord significantly hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation. The Ombudsman has taken this into account when reaching the overall finding that there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
We will order the landlord to conduct a review of its record keeping practices to identify any wider learning to make these more robust. It may wish to consider our recommendations in our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). This would help it to carry out its review more effectively and bring its approach in line with best practice.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42.j, of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about how the landlord handled the resident’s housing applications is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of vandalism.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of mould and outstanding repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of flies coming from his neighbour’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should must:
1. apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. A senior member of the landlord’s staff should make the apology.
2. pay the resident £700 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of his ASB reports.
  2. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor response to his repair requests and reports of damp and mould.
  3. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to offer support following the death of his neighbour.
  4. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. review its training to all staff dealing with ASB to ensure that it understands the importance of carrying out risk assessments to help it consider any risks and so that it is able to offer further support vulnerable residents. This will ensure that it follows its procedure in all cases. The landlord should also remind staff of the importance of agreeing action plans with the resident at an early stage. The landlord to report back to this Service to confirm it has done this.
2. consider delivering complaint training to ensure that the relevant staff are fully aware of the provisions contained within the Code. This should include the importance of properly addressing all aspects of a complaint, and openly acknowledging shortcomings and failings in service where these have been identified. The landlord is to provide the Service with evidence it has carried out the abovementioned orders within the timescale as stated above.
3. review its working practices in relation to record keeping. This must specifically address the issues highlighted in this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with the findings of its review, details of any learning it has identified and any actions it proposes to take as a result. To assist it in doing this it may wish to consult the following recommendations in our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management:
  1. recommendation 2: Implement a knowledge and information management strategy.
  2. recommendation 3: Benchmark against other organisations’ good practice in knowledge and information management.
  3. recommendation 6: Review internal guidance around recording vulnerabilities.
  4. recommendation 7: Develop organisational key data recording standard requirements that will ensure good records that support the business and demonstrate compliance with national standards.