Midland Heart Limited (202010407)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010407

Midland Heart Limited

24 April 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The installation of windows at the property.
2. The resident’s request to replace a skylight.
3. The resident’s request for a new front door.
4. The installation of a communal light sensor switch.
5. The correspondence it sent to the resident as part of the gas servicing process.
6. The resident’s report of a repair to the communal gate.
7. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
8. The resident’s complaints.
This report will also look at the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Background

The resident lives in a one-bedroom flat in a property that is owned and managed by a housing association. The property is a grade II listed building that was let under an assured tenancy agreement in 1991.
The landlord records that the resident has reported mental health concerns.
The landlord was required to apply for planning permission to complete structural works to the property such as to replace the windows, and the door with a different material and design. The landlord noted that it could take anything from 8-18 weeks and possibly longer with grade II listed buildings for the local authority to respond to a planning application.
In her complaint the resident raised concerns that she had been experiencing issues with her windows since 2005. The landlord explained in its stage 1 complaint response that as her concerns had been not bought to its attention until April 2022 and it would not address the issues retrospectively. It agreed to look at the resident’s window replacement concerns from the date they were renewed in February 2022, in line with its complaints policy.

Relevant policies and procedures

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord is obliged to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house (including drains, gutters, and external pipes). It is also obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The tenancy agreement also says the landlord will keep the outside walls, outside doors, windowsills, window catches, sash cords, window frames, doors, door frames, the roof, the structure, and exterior of the property in good repair.
The landlord’s planned works referral procedure says that planned works include major works such as windows, doors, and roofs. If a request for a repair is not added to a planned works programme it will undertake appropriate repairs to ensure that the component remains fit for purpose, serviceable and managed as a routine repair.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete routine repairs within 28 days and major repairs within 90 days.
The landlord’s gas safety policy says it will conform to all relevant legal obligations and regulatory requirements on gas safety where it has responsibility for gas safety and keeping residents safe. It will take all reasonable attempts to gain access in order to carry out a gas safety check, including using legal remedies.
The landlord’s ASB says verbal abuse, threatening or intimidating behaviour and drug dealing, or drug use is classified as ASB. Children playing and children playing ball games are not considered to be ASB. It will work with residents and partner agencies, where possible, to change behaviour that is having a negative impact and/or causing a risk of harm. It will prevent incidents and reoccurrence of ASB by using effective and appropriate interventions and ensure reasonable and proportionate action is taken to mitigate the risk of harm. It will complete an initial risk assessment and provide appropriate advice and review the matters as is appropriate for the duration of the case. Its first response will be to provide advice and assistance to help residents find a solution and resolve the ASB without its direct intervention. It will record all cases of ASB and agree clear actions with the resident on how it will tackle the case and agree the frequency and method in which it will keep the resident updated. It will work with relevant partners when a community trigger review is requested to ensure that all relevant information is provided to the review panel to enable them to respond effectively to residents who request a review.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy which says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation guidance says it will pay between £35 and £70 for a failure of service as a result of delays, quality, or admin error. It will pay up to £100 for upset and/or inconvenience.
Paragraph 4.1 of the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the ‘Code’) says a complaint should be acknowledged and logged within 5 days of receipt. Paragraph 5.6 says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. Paragraphs 5.8 and 5.16 of the Code says that landlords must confirm the complaint stage, complaint definition, the decision on the complaint, any reasons for the decisions made, and details of how to escalate the complete if the resident is not satisfied.

Summary of events

The landlord received a decision from the local authority planning department on 21 December 2020 that said that the replacement of windows in the property must be in accordance with its listed status and for the materials to match the existing main building.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 11 May 2021 to advise her that it would inspect and survey the windows in the property on 19 May 2021.
The landlord spoke to the resident on an undisclosed date in February 2022. It confirmed that it would not replace the skylight or the front door because planning permission had been granted for window replacements only.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 February 2022 to ask it to replace the windows in the property one room at a time as she needed assistance in moving her belongings and had not had time to prepare.
The landlord completed window replacements in the property on 23 February 2022.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 29 March 2022 to advise her that an appointment had been booked for a gas servicing appointment to take place on 11 April 2022.
The landlord sent a text to the resident on 11 April 2022 to say it was on its way to her property to undertake her gas service. It visited the property, but the resident advised that she had not received its letter and asked for the appointment to be rearranged. The landlord sent a letter to the resident the same day to advise her that it had rebooked the appointment for 21 April 2022.
The landlord visited the property to complete a gas service on 21 April 2022 and 4 May 2022, but no access was provided. The landlord sent text messages to the resident on 4, 10, and 11 May 2022 to say it had booked the gas service on 11 May 2022.
The resident contacted this Service on 4 May 2022 to say that the landlord had not accepted a complaint she had reported to it the same day. She said that she had reported concerns about grass cutting, lighting, the condition of the replacement windows, which were not like for like and had been downgraded, damage caused to her property during the window replacement works, the complaint process, and communication about the matters she had raised which she said were not being taken seriously.
The landlord completed a gas safety inspection at the property on 11 May 2022.
The resident sent an email to this Service on 11 May 2022 to confirm that the landlord had visited the property the same day to repair the gate by replacing screws and completing paintwork. The resident said that the work did not address damage that had been caused to the panel by a previous contractor. She also reported that the contractor had been rude towards her and had covered his ID badge with his hand when she had asked to see it.
The resident reported children playing in the communal garden to the landlord on 13 May 2022. She explained that she had asked them to play elsewhere and that the children had approached her window and had been swearing and showing their tongues to her. When she had started to film them using her phone their mother told her she could not film her children and called her a paedophile. The resident reported the matter to the police later the same day.
The resident sent an email to this Service on 15 May 2022 to confirm that the police had visited her property in response to the complaint she had made about her neighbours 2 days previously. She said that she would like the CCTV cameras reactivated to evidence ASB that was taking place.
A support agency wrote to the landlord on 25 May 2022 to say that the resident had reported ASB from children in and around the property and that the police had said that the children were causing noise. It also said that when the resident had asked the children to be quiet she was sworn at and insulted. The agency also said that the resident considered the landlord to be dismissive of the situation and would like the CCTV cameras turned back on for the security of residents and to evidence any incidents of ASB. It asked the landlord to contact it and/or the resident about the matters.
The landlord sent an internal email on 1 June 2022 to ask if any footage was available from CCTV cameras to provide to the police and victim support, following a request it had received from these agencies. It confirmed that a contractor had visited the site the same day and said that there had been no cameras on site.
The landlord contacted the resident on 1 June 2022 to discuss the matters the support agency had raised on her behalf. The resident contacted the landlord later the same day to request a recording of the call she made on the 13th May 2022 and to put in a formal complaint about how the call had been handled. The call handler said that he would not put in a complaint, nor would he provide a copy of the recording and that she would have to make a complaint herself.
The landlord sent an internal email on 8 June 2022 that asked for information about the use of CCTV so that it could respond to the police and victim support.
The landlord sent a letter and an ASB action plan to the resident on 5 July 2022 to say that it would visit her on 14 July 2022 to discuss her ASB complaint. It said that it would require evidence of the ASB for it to progress her reports and that it would intervene where it was in the best interests of the landlord, its residents and when the behaviour posed a risk to a person’s tenancy and/or there was a risk of harm. Children playing in the communal garden would not be generally considered ASB unless the resident could demonstrate that it was unreasonable targeted behaviour. It asked the resident to download a noise app to evidence ASB.
The landlord completed an ASB risk assessment form on 21 July 2022 based upon the resident’s answers to a series of questions. The assessment concluded there to be a low risk to the resident.
The resident contacted this Service on 3 August 2022 to report concerns about ASB in relation noise nuisance from children and allegations of harassment and abuse from a neighbour, staff conduct, communication and reports that contractors had bullied and sworn at her, outstanding repairs to windows throughout the property, issues relating to her gas service during which the landlord had threatened to evict her, outstanding repairs to lighting and to the back gate.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 8 August 2022 to raise a stage 1 complaint on her behalf about the matters she had reported on 3 August 2022.
The resident reported that she had been assaulted by a neighbour on 12 August 2022 to the police later the same day.
The landlord sent a stage 1 response to the resident on 22 August 2022. The landlord said:
1. The resident had reported that ASB incidents had restarted within the preceding 6 weeks and that it had opened an ASB case which it was investigating.
2. The resident had reported a physical assault from a different neighbour which had happened on 12 August 2022 to the police but had not reported it to the landlord.
3. It had opened an additional ASB case and made arrangements for the tenancy service team to contact her on 24 August 2022 to discuss the next steps.
4. It was unable to act in relation to children playing within communal areas, but as this was causing damage to resident’s vehicles, it had requested that its estates officer addressed this when visiting the area.
5. It was sorry that its communication had not met the resident’s expectations and that when she had tried to raise her concerns she had been advised to make a complaint.
6. It had written to the resident to provide her with gas safety inspection appointments 3 times and had visited the property 4 times to prior to completing the safety inspection on 11 May 2022. A letter that had outlined the pre-notice of seeking possession had been sent as a last resort to ensure that it complied with its legal requirements.
7. As it had completed the inspection and installed a CO2 detector no further action would be taken, and she was not being evicted from her home.
8. It would address the resident’s concerns about her windows from February 2022 in line with the 6-month timescales contained within its complaint policy.
9. The resident had reported that the windows had been measured 3 times prior to the wrong glass and frames being installed and that damage that had been caused to her TV stand had not been addressed. It apologised for the lack of communication about her concerns and recognised this as a service failure and upheld this aspect of her complaint.
10. A member of staff would visit the property the next day to discuss the matters in more detail.
11. It had carried out repairs to the communal lighting in response to reports it had received from residents and a light-sensor had been installed so that the light was not switched on permanently.
12. It had asked for a lighting survey to be completed to respond to the resident’s concerns that the light sensor was not suitable for the building.
13. It had escalated the resident concerns about an operative that had attended a gate repair appointment on 11 May 2022 and had not shown his ID badge when asked to the management team. During the visit the screws were tightened but as this did not resolve the issue, a new appointment had been scheduled for 20 September 2022.
14. It upheld the residents complaint “as result of her experience” and explained that she could escalate the matters to stage 2 if she remained dissatisfied.
The landlord attended the property on 23 August 2022 to inspect the windows but did not gain access.
The landlord sent internal emails on 2 and 5 September 2022 to ask for clarification about any plans to switch on some CCTV cameras in the area and if the area would be added to a CCTV project.
On an undisclosed date prior to 20 September 2022 a contractor reported witnessing a neighbour verbally abusing the resident on 5 September 2022 to the landlord.
The landlord sent a letter and an ASB action plan to the resident on 5 September 2022 to say that it would visit her on 14 September 2022 to discuss her ASB complaint. It repeated advice it had provided in its previous letter of 5 July 2022. It also said that the resident would have to demonstrate verbal abuse and allegations of assault, for example by using CCTV or a mobile device to record the incident, or evidence that the police had progressed her complaint. It also said that the resident had confirmed to the landlord the same day that she did not have any evidence of noise nuisance from a neighbour, nor any witnesses of an assault from a different neighbour. It confirmed that it would liaise with the police and would visit both neighbours prior to the resident’s appointment. It referred to restorative justice as a remedy that it could facilitate and for the resident to consider this prior to the meeting.
The landlord sent the resident a copy of an ASB action plan it had agreed with her in a letter dated 20 September 2022. The letter said:
1. Although it did not have any evidence to support allegations of ASB from a neighbour it would visit the address and issue a warning following confirmation that the police had issued a warning.
2. Video footage of children playing in the communal garden did not constitute ASB and so it would not take any action.
3. It had raised investigations with the police about allegations of drug-related activity by a neighbour and in the car park.
4. It would contact a different neighbour and ask her to keep away from the resident but noted that there had been no further ASB issues between the neighbours.
5. It had received an independent witness report of verbal abuse being directed towards the resident from the neighbour on 5 September 2022 and so it would issue a tenancy warning when it had spoken with the witness.
6. The resident’s request for CCTV to be installed had been passed to the estates team to consider.
7. It would facilitate restorative justice if the resident changed her mind and wished to engage with the process.
The landlord sent an internal email on 22 September 2022 that asked if there had been any progress of the resident’s enquiry about the reconnection and use of some redundant CCTV cameras.
The resident submitted a stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 4 October 2022. It noted the reasons for the stage 2 escalation were due to:
1. An omission in addressing the replacement of a skylight and front door in the stage 1 response.
2. Its failure to review and regulate the windows which it had downgraded.
3. The communal light which had not been changed.
4. The gate which had not been repaired and the operative had been rude.
5. A gas servicing appointment which had been booked 30 minutes before the appointment and the resident had been unwell and so couldn’t provide access.
6. Her housing officer who had listened to her but had said that she was being unreasonable about the presence of noise and drug dealing.
7. A request for CCTV to be installed due to drug dealing.
The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint acknowledgment letter to the resident on 5 October 2022. It said that it would respond to her by 31 October 2022.
The community trigger panel sent a letter to the landlord on 14 October 2022 to confirm that the resident had submitted an application, and her case had met the required threshold and would be presented at a panel meeting on 17 November 2022. It asked the landlord to provide records of actions it had taken to assess its response to the ASB reports.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 27 October 2022 to extend its complaint response date until after it had inspected the windows. The resident agreed a revised response date of 4 November 2022.
The landlord visited the property on 31 October 2022 and inspected the property windows, front door, skylight, communal light, and the gate. The landlord sent an internal email the next day to summarise its findings for inclusion in its stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord sent an ASB case review letter and action plan document to the resident on 3 November 2022. It indicated that it had called her on 27 October 2022 but had not been able to make contact or leave a voicemail. It confirmed:
1. It had visited a neighbour and issued a retrospective warning based upon a community protection notice that the police had issues in July 2022.
2. It had explained to her neighbour that the children could use the communal garden to play.
3. It required evidence of any incidents that took place as one person’s word against another was not sufficient.
4. It had no plans to recommission CCTV in the communal garden but if the resident had plans to install her own CCTV she should seek written permission beforehand.
5. It had been made aware of another incident that the resident had reported to the police in October 2022. It asked if she had any evidence to substantiate the matter as the police had said that the allegations of drug-related activity were unsubstantiated.
6. It had visited 2 other neighbours about allegations of ASB and had been unable to substantiate the reports of drug misuse and an allegation of assault. Both parties had said that the resident intimidated residents from using the communal garden.
7. The case would be discussed at the approaching community trigger panel meeting on 17 November 2022.
The landlord sent an internal email on 2 November 2022 that said it had visited the property and the resident had raised issues with mould, condensation, and water ingress from a skylight. It asked for an inspection to be completed.
The landlord sent an internal email on 4 November 2022 that said that there was no planned programme for skylights and that it usually replaced these within a roof programme. The landlord indicated that it had not completed a roof replacement programme and that a neighbouring skylight would have been completed as a repair.
The landlord sent a stage 2 response to the resident on 4 November 2022. The landlord said:
1. It had attended the property on 23 August 2022 to address the complaint about window repairs, but it did not rearrange the appointment when it did not gain access. It apologised for this.
2. Following an appointment on 31 October 2022 it had no concerns about the structural integrity of the windows but noted that the painting could have been completed to a higher standard. It apologised for this and said it would arrange for this to be rectified in November 2022.
3. It had investigated the resident’s concerns about a lack of communication and damage caused to her TV stand and said that it could not find any evidence that the damage had happened during the repair appointment and that its findings were inconclusive. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to issue a response to her about the matter. It said it had raised the concerns about its communication with the relevant staff teams.
4. It recognised that its stage 1 response did not address the door or skylight. The skylight had not been due to be renewed during the window replacement programme. An appointment would be arranged to inspect the skylight for water ingress and for damp in the property.
5. It had explained in a previous response dated May 2020 that planning applications for doors and windows had been refused but that planning approval to replace windows on a like for like nature had been approved on 3 December 2020. Therefore it could not upgrade or downgrade the windows.
6. The replacement windows were of the same standard as had been previously installed. The windows might look different, but their function remained to a high standard and with enhanced security.
7. The door was due for consideration for renewal during 2022 but due to the listed nature of the building it would be unable to install a composite door and would need to fit a door that was like the current door in material and colour. However, it would consider the option of a new timber door to support the resident.
8. Upon inspection, the gate was found to be in good working order and could be locked. There was some minor damage, but this did not require a repair and it was satisfied with the condition of the gate.
9. It recognised that there had been a lack of communication about the installation of a light sensor. The light was found to be faulty on 30 May 2022 and so it installed a new light sensor. It was unable to fit a light that remained on permanently due to light pollution and energy costs.
10. It was unclear why she had not received its gas safety inspection letter which had been issued to her along with other residents who had received the letter. It apologised for this.
11. It agreed to feed back about the threatening tone of its subsequent gas servicing letter, but that it had to be clear that if it did not gain access to complete a gas service there could be a potential threat to the life to residents.
12. It had taken her reports of ASB seriously and had held discussions about the investigations it had completed.
13. It recognised that she had pursued a community trigger application and committed to engage with all agencies in the resolution of the application. If the outcome of the investigation found it needed to have done more it would act accordingly and recompense her for any service failure.
14. It apologised again for its repairs failings, complaint handling, and for not adhering to some of the actions it had committed to carry out.
15. It offered the resident a compensation award of £555 for the standard of the window replacements (£100), its delay in reinspecting the windows (£250), compliant handling (£170), communal ground maintenance failings (£35).

Events that took place after completion of the internal complaint procedure.

The community trigger panel sent a letter to the resident on 25 November 2022 following a case review meeting it held on 17 November 2022. The letter said that overall the panel found that agencies responded proportionally and appropriately in line with their policy and procedures in addressing the reported incidents of ASB. The landlord had completed a number of actions to address the incidents reported including home visits, warning letters, liaison with the Police, and reviewing all evidence received.
On the 28 November 2022 the landlord’s contractor scraped, filled, and repainted the damaged window sills and the resident has not reported any further concerns about the windows.
The landlord visited the property on an undisclosed date in response to a report it had received about condensation around the skylight. Upon inspection, the landlord found there to be no evidence of water ingress or damp/mould.
When the landlord submitted evidence related to this complaint to this Service on 7 November 2023 it confirmed that the local authority had declined planning permission for a replacement of the front door and the skylight. It said that there were no repair issues with these items.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the installation of windows at the property.

The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows on 11 May 2021 by agreeing to inspect the property on 19 May 2021. It is not clear to this Service when the resident had reported the repairs but the landlord’s decision to visit the property to assess the windows was appropriate.
There is no evidence to confirm what action the landlord had taken to address the window repairs until the resident said that it had not given her sufficient notice to prepare for the repairs. The resident reported this to the landlord on 18 February 2022, 5 calendar days before the works took place. The short notice was unreasonable given the landlord had inspected the property 9 months previously and would have ordered and planned the window replacements in advance of the installation.
The landlord completed the window replacement work on 23 February 2022 which was outside of its 90-day planned maintenance policy timescale and was therefore inappropriate.
There is limited evidence that the landlord undertook an investigation into the resident’s reports that it had measured the windows 3 times prior to installing the wrong glass and frames. However, in its stage 1 complaint response it apologised for this and recognised it is a service failure. Despite this the landlord did not offer the resident any compensation for the detriment this had caused to the resident which was inappropriate .
The landlord sought to inspect the windows on 23 August 2022 but did not gain access and failed to rearrange the appointment. This was unreasonable and resulted in the resident raising her concerns as a stage 2 complaint, thereby causing her time and trouble in seeking a resolution to the matter.
The landlord visited the property again on 31 October 2022 when it recognised that the standard of workmanship had been poor. This was an unreasonable amount of time for the resident to wait for the landlord to inspect the windows following its unsuccessful appointment 2 months previously.
When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord had 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 (an apology, acknowledgement of service failure, completion of repair works and compensation) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord had taken steps to put things right by agreeing to carry out the repair which it completed 14 days after issuing its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord also acted fairly by apologising to the resident and offered £250 as compensation for its delay in reinspecting the windows. This amount was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings. Furthermore this amount was above the provisions of the landlord’s compensation policy and this Service’s remedies guidance. Consequently this Service finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the installation of windows at the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace a skylight.

It is unclear when the resident first requested the replacement of a skylight, however it is evident that the landlord had advised her in February 2022 that it would not replace the skylight. The landlord explained that this was because planning permission had been granted for window replacements only.
It is evident that the resident raised concerns that the landlord had not addressed her complaint about the replacement of the skylight in its stage 1 complaint response of 22 August 2022. Complaint handling is addressed later in the report.
It is evident in its email of 4 November 2022 that the landlord considered that skylight works would usually be completed as part of a roof replacement programme. The landlord indicated that it had not recently completed a roof replacement programme and therefore it was reasonable for it not to have considered the replacement of the skylight outside of a usual planned works programme.
The landlord inspected the property on 31 October 2022 and indicated that the resident had wanted the skylight replaced because a skylight in a neighbouring property had been replaced. There is no evidence that the landlord was aware of any concerns about the condition of the skylight until it sent an internal email on 2 November 2022 which referred to condensation, damp, and mould. The landlord referred to the matter in its stage 2 response and agreed to assess the skylight following its stage 2 complaint response which was a reasonable response for it to have taken.
The landlord completed an inspection of the skylight on an undisclosed date after the stage 2 complaint response was provided and found there to be no concerns about the condition of the skylight related to water ingress or damp. It was appropriate for the landlord to inspect the skylight again in light of reported concerns it had received about water ingress. Taking all matters into account this Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace a skylight.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new front door.

It is unclear when the resident first requested the replacement of the front door, however it is evident that the landlord had advised her that it would not replace the front door in February 2022. The landlord explained that this was because planning permission had been granted for window replacements only.
It is evident that the resident raised concerns that the landlord had not addressed her complaint about the replacement of the front door in its stage 1 complaint response of 22 August 2022. Complaint handling is addressed later in the report.
There is no evidence to suggest that the resident had reported any concerns about the condition or functionality of the front door. Therefore it was reasonable for the landlord not to investigate any concerns about the replacement of the front door outside of any major works programme it intended to complete. The landlord inspected the front door on 31 October 2022 during its investigation into the complaint and did not raise any concerns about the condition of the door.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord explained that a previous planning application that had referred to the replacement of front doors had been rejected in May 2020. It also indicated that it was due to renew the front doors during 2022 but that it would be required to fit a door that was like the current door in material and colour. It was appropriate for the landlord to set out these requirements in line with the local authority planning department guidelines on listed buildings, so as to manage the resident’s expectations. The landlord suggested that it would consider installing a new timber door in a bid to support the resident when these works commence. This was a resolution-focussed approach for the landlord to have taken to address the resident’s request.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds no maladministration in the handling of the resident’s request for a new front door.

The landlord’s handling of the installation of a communal light.

The landlord completed repairs to a communal light on 30 May 2022 following repair reports it had received from residents. It is not clear when the repair was reported to the landlord or by whom. Therefore this Service is unable to determine if the repair was completed in line with its routine repair policy timescale of 28 days. However, the landlord confirmed in its complaint responses that it had completed the repair by replacing the light with a motion sensor. When deciding on how best to proceed with the repair, it was reasonable for the landlord to have relied on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors.
The landlord arranged for an electrical surveyor to reassess the light installation following its stage 1 complaint response which was a reasonable approach for it to have taken in response to the resident’s complaint and to ensure the light fitting was appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord reviewed the communal light installation again in its stage 2 complaint response in which it said that it would not fit a light that remained on constantly due to the light pollution and increase in energy costs this would cause. It was reasonable for the landlord to have reconsidered the light installation and to have explained the reasons it would not change the motion sensor to the resident in its complaint response.
The landlord also apologised for the lack of information it had provided to the resident about the action it had taken and indicated that it would offer a compensation payment to the resident in recognition of this. It was reasonable for the landlord to have recognised its own communication failings and the detriment that it caused to the resident and to have offered compensation payment in keeping with its compensation policy. The landlord included this compensation in the £170 it offered to include other complaint handling issues and overall this amount was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident in relation to both this complaint and the complaint handling failings as set out below.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the installation of a communal light.

The landlord’s handling of correspondence it sent to the resident as part of the gas servicing process.

The landlord sent 3 letters to the resident and series of text messages to notify her that it had set up appointments to complete gas servicing appointment in April and May 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to have issued notification in advance of the appointment. The landlord provided reasonable notice of the appointments in line with its gas safety policy. Furthermore it was appropriate for the landlord to have explained its requirement to complete the gas service in line with its tenancy and legal obligations.
When reviewing the resident’s complaint at stage 1 the landlord recognised her concerns about the tone of its letters and reported that it had issued these because it had attended 3 missed appointments at the property. It also explained its legal obligation to complete the gas service and advised that it had issued a pre-notice of seeking possession letter as a last resort, in line with its policy. The landlord also stated that no further action was being taken. It was appropriate for the landlord to have provided an explanation about these matters in its complaint response to ensure the resident understood why it had taken the actions it had taken so as to regain the resident’s confidence in its gas services.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord reviewed its handling of the gas servicing again and apologised that she had not received its initial letter which had been successfully delivered to other residents at the same time. The landlord agreed to feedback about the tone and content of the letter to its compliance team in light of the resident’s concerns about its threatening nature. The landlord also said that the letters were sent to be clear that if it did not gain access it could pose a potential threat to the life of the resident and her neighbours. This was appropriate advice for the landlord to provide and its commitment to review the letter in response to her concerns was in keeping with reasonable dispute resolution principles to put things right and learn from mistakes.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds no maladministration in the landlord handling of correspondence it sent to the resident as part of the gas servicing process.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a repair to the communal gate.

The landlord attended a repair to the communal gate on 11 May 2022 during which it completed repairs to the screws and paintwork. It is evident that the resident considered that the work had not met her expectations as she reported this view to the landlord later the same day. However, the landlord had sent a qualified contractor to complete the works and was therefore entitled to rely on its assessment of the required works in line with it repair obligations.
The landlord recognised the resident’s concerns in its stage 1 complaint response and agreed to inspect the communal gate again on 20 September 2022. There is no evidence of the outcome of this appointment. However the resident’s raised the matter again in her stage 2 complaint which suggested that no further repairs had been carried out since the landlord had made its commitment to return to the property.
The landlord reinspected the communal gate on 31 October 2022 when investigating the stage 2 complaint and confirmed that the gate was in good working order and was able to be locked. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord not to have completed further repairs to the gate and the landlord appropriately explained this to the resident in its final complaint response.
The resident reported that the contractor that had attended the appointment on 11 May 2022 had been rude and had covered his ID badge when asked. It was inappropriate for the contractor to have approached the resident and the situation in this way. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that it had taken appropriate action about the matter by raising it with the relevant management staff. This evidenced that the landlord had applied appropriate dispute resolution principles to put right what had gone wrong. The landlord also acted fairly by apologising to the resident for the way she was spoken to by its repairs staff in its stage 2 response and indicated it had addressed the matters internally in line with its policies and procedures.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident report of a repair to the communal gate.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

It is evident that this situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to firstly explain that the Ombudsman’s role is not to decide if the actions of the neighbours and their children amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
To respond to the resident reports of ASB the landlord:
1. Engaged with a support agency about the resident’s concerns about the attitude and noise from children playing in the communal areas that she had reported to it. This was in keeping with the landlord’s ASB policy.
2. Investigated whether some redundant CCTV cameras had been active to evidence the reports the resident had made. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to have investigated the use of the cameras it took the landlord 6 months to advise the resident that the cameras were not in use, nor were planned to be recommissioned. The landlord shared the information with the resident on 3 November 2022 which was an unreasonable wait that caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
3. Met with the resident at regular intervals on 14 July 2022, 21 July 2022, and 14 September 2022, and sent summary letters and an action plans to the resident about the actions that had been agreed. This approach and its regular contact was in keeping with its ASB policy. However it is unclear why the landlord did not engage with the resident prior to its letter of 5 July 2022, given the resident had first reported her ASB concerns to the landlord in May 2022. This was inappropriate and a missed opportunity to address the resident’s concerns when they were first reported.
4. Advised the resident that children playing was not considered ASB in line with its ASB policy in a letter it sent to her on 5 July 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to explain this to the resident to manage her expectations.
5. Asked the resident to download a noise app on 5 July 2022 to evidence any ASB and nuisance she experienced.
6. Completed an ASB risk assessment on 21 July 2022 based upon the resident’s answers to a series of questions which determined the ASB to be low level.
7. Took a statement from a contractor on an undisclosed date to evidence verbal abuse being directed towards the resident on 5 September 2022. The landlord confirmed this to the resident in its letter of 20 September 2022, so as to reassure her that it was seeking to evidence the ASB she had experienced.
8. Provided information about its case management to a community trigger panel and attended the meeting to discuss the resident’s ASB reports on 17 November 2022 in keeping with the landlord’s ASB policy.
9. Engaged with the police about its investigations into an assault and drug use and dealing and issued a warning to a neighbour in line with action the police had taken.
10. Visited neighbours to address allegations of verbal abuse, assault, and drug dealing.
11. Offered to facilitate restorative justice as a mechanism for bringing the neighbours together to overcome their differences in letters dated 5 and 20 September 2022.
12. Sent an ASB case review and action plan letter to the resident on 3 November 2022 following a failed contact with her on 27 October 2022.
The landlord addressed the resident’s complaint about its handling of her reports of ASB. It indicated in its stage 1 complaint response that the resident had experienced a resurgence of ASB that had started during the preceding 6 weeks. The landlord also recognised that the resident had experienced ASB 7 or 8 years previously in its complaint response. It was reasonable for the landlord to have reviewed the history of ASB and set out its understanding of the extent of the ASB.
The landlord indicated in its stage 1 complaint response that it had been aware that the resident had experienced an assault from a neighbour, and she had been working with the police to address the matters. It also said that she had not reported the matter to the landlord when the incident had happened on 12 August 2022. The landlord could not be expected to respond to matters that had not been reported to it. Notwithstanding, the landlord asked the resident for information and indicated that it would work with the police and resident to address these concerns. The landlord appropriately indicated that it had opened a new ASB case and would contact the resident about the matter 2 days later. It was appropriate for the landlord to indicate it was prepared to investigate the matters in support of the resident and arrange an appointment to discuss the matter within a reasonable timescale.
As set out above much of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was appropriate. However, it is evident to this Service that the landlord did not complete its initial risk assessment until 21 July 2022 which was 2 months after the resident’s initial reports of ASB in May 2022. The landlord also took an unreasonable amount of time to provide information about the use of CCTV cameras and this could have been avoided.
Taking all matters into account this Service therefore finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
1. Did not accept the resident’s complaint when she reported it on 4 May 2022.
2. Did not accept the resident’s complaint when she reported it on 13 May 2022.
3. Did not issue a stage 1 complaint acknowledgment letter to the resident when it had received a request to investigate the complaint from this Service on 8 August 2022.
It is evident that the resident raised concerns that the landlord had not addressed her complaint about the front door and a skylight in its stage 1 complaint response. The complaint had been submitted to the landlord on behalf of the resident by this Service on 8 August 2022 and upon review it is evident that she had not referred to the front door or skylight during the conversation held with this Service on 3 August 2022. The matter was therefore not put to the landlord in the stage 1 complaint. Consequently, the landlord cannot have been expected to respond to an element of the complaint that had not been submitted.
The landlord apologised for its recognised complaint handling failures and offered £170 as compensation. This amount was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings. Furthermore this amount was above the provisions of the landlord’s compensation policy and this Service’s remedies guidance. Consequently this Service finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

The landlord’s handling of knowledge and information.

In its stage 2 complaint response of 4 November 2022 that landlord indicated that it had not retained information about the actions it had taken to repair the communal light due to staff changes. The landlord also failed to provide evidence of a communal gate appointment it had committed to complete in its stage 1 complaint response, nor evidence of the contact the resident had made when she reported concerns about the windows, skylight, and front door. It was inappropriate for the landlord not to have retained and provided this information so that it could account for the housing services it had completed. We have found service failure in the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the installation of windows at the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace a skylight.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new front door.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the installation of a communal light.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the correspondence it sent to the resident as part of the gas servicing process.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a repair to the communal gate.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of knowledge and information.

Reasons

The landlord failed to comply with its own planned works referral procedure during its handling of the window repairs which caused an unnecessary delay in completing the replacement. Furthermore there were examples of poor workmanship. However the landlord investigated its own repairs failings and offered an apology and a proportionate level of compensation for the recognised service failures.
The landlord undertook inspections of the skylight and found there to be no concerns about its condition or any reasons it warranted a repair.
The landlord explained the requirement to obtain planning permission for the replacement of the front door to the resident. It undertook an inspection of the door and found there to be no concerns about its condition that warranted a repair. It agreed to address the door in line with its planned works programme.
The landlord failed to communicate with the resident about the installation of a communal light which resulted in her raising a complaint about the reasons it had changed the light to a motion sensor. The landlord subsequently recognised its failings and provided the resident with a compensation payment that was proportionate to the detriment that had been caused.
The landlord issued appointments to the resident within appropriate timescales and in line with its policy. The landlord provided appropriate explanations about its use of standard gas servicing letters in its complaint responses.
The landlord assessed the communal gate repairs in line with its policy and using the expertise of its staff and contractors and issued an apology for its recognised failings in its stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord completed many appropriate responses to the resident’s reports of ASB in line with its policy. However it took too long to complete an initial risk assessment and provide information about the use of CCTV cameras, which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord failed to comply with its own complaints policy and the Code during its handling of the resident’s complaints. However the landlord offered an apology and a proportionate level for compensation for its recognised service failures.
The landlord failed to retain records of some of the actions it had taken in relation to the repairs to the communal light, communal gate, and the windows, skylight, and front door to the property.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its handling of her ASB reports. This is to be provided in writing within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
In addition to any previous compensation issued and within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £100 in compensation for the time and trouble caused to the resident related to the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports.

The compensation is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.