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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202305037)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305037

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

15 May 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) about the resident.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) about his neighbour.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant with the landlord since June 2006. The property is a one-bedroom first first-floor flat. The building is owned by the landlord and comprises two flats. The resident’s downstairs neighbour (who he would later complain about) moved in in 2020. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. It informed this Service in April 2024 it is aware the resident is a recovering alcoholic and has mental health problems.
  2. On 19 May 2022 the resident told the landlord his neighbour was “stamping on his mail.” He declined to raise an ASB report. However, the landlord arranged for a private letterbox to be fitted for the resident on 20 June 2022. On 13 June and 11 August 2022, the resident reported his neighbour was “stamping on his mail”, he was being followed and his back window had been smashed. He asked for the landlord to call him back on each occasion. There is no evidence of the landlord completing this.
  3. On 19 May 2022, 30 August 2022, and 27 February 2023 the resident reported to the landlord his neighbour’s sons had “threatened to kill him”. The landlord told him on each occasion it could not comment on the residents’ concerns. It explained it had investigated the matter in June 2021 with the police. It said no further action was taken due to “lack of evidence.” It told him it could reopen the case if he provided further evidence. There is no further evidence of reports of ASB from the resident about his neighbour.
  4. The resident’s neighbour reported on 30 August 2022 the resident was “smoking cannabis” and making a noise nuisance. The landlord opened an ASB case following this report. It wrote to him on 18 November 2022 with a tenancy warning letter. It said it had received 13 reports of the same issue between 5 and 19 November 2022. It asked the resident to stop using cannabis and to be considerate when playing music. It told him it would continue to monitor the situation and could consider “enforcement action” if it received further complaints. Following this, there is no further evidence of complaints regarding these matters.
  5. On 13 March 2023, the resident’s neighbour reported the resident’s plant pot had fallen from the resident’s ledge and injured them. The landlord spoke with the resident on 16 March 2023 and sent a letter on 23 March 2023 asking him to remove the plant pots. It stated the plant pots constituted “a health and safety hazard.” On 11 May 2023, the landlord sent a ‘letter before legal action’ to the resident. It told him he had 3 days to remove the plant pots, or it would seek an order from court. It told him he could face court costs up to £1600. The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 May 2023. It confirmed it had inspected the property and found the plant pots had been removed. It stated it was closing the health and safety case.
  6. The resident raised a complaint on 15 May 2023. He stated the following:
    1. He raised concerns about how the landlord had handled several historical issues. This included: the landlord sharing photos provided by the resident with the neighbour in 2021. He had received a letter in 2021 about standing in front of his neighbour’s window. His neighbour’s son had “threatened to kill,” him which was responded to in June 2021.
    2. He said the allegations made about him were “harassment beyond belief.” It had “colluded with the neighbour to write the racial profiling letter of 18 November 2022.” He said the landlord was “just believing what the neighbour says” and “backing up racist views.” It was providing him with “no duty of care it did not care about his mental health or that he had to take time off work “with stress.”
    3. He said the landlord failed to provide evidence his neighbour was injured by his plant pot. It was making him “destroy his flowers” and this was now “a hate crime.”
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 30 May 2023. It told him the following:
    1. It had addressed all his concerns at a meeting with him on 16 March 2023. It told him there was no breach of tenancy from him or his neighbour. There were no open ASB cases concerning him or his neighbour. It had offered mediation between him and his neighbour. If the resident provided further evidence of ASB it would take further action.
    2. It sent a legal letter to him about his plant pots as it was concerned they could fall off and cause a hazard. It confirmed he had since moved the plant pots and said it would take no further action. It did not uphold his complaint.
  8. The resident escalated his complaint on 23 June 2023 and raised the same information as in his complaint of 15 May 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 26 June 2023. It told him his escalation failed to reach its threshold for further investigation. It believed it had provided an appropriate outcome at stage 1 and could find no evidence of poor complaint handling. It stated it was unable to uphold his stage 2 complaint.
  9. The Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation on 11 January 2024. He confirmed his concerns as the following: the landlord had colluded with his neighbour and sent 2 prejudiced letters to him. His neighbour had made “false accusations about him.” He said he had been “racially profiled” since moving in. The landlord and police had “done nothing” about the death threats he received. The landlord had also “sent data to his neighbour” without consent.

Assessment and findings

Scope of assessment.

  1. The purpose of this investigation is not to establish if ASB occurred, or which party in the neighbouring dispute was responsible. It is for the Ombudsman to determine whether, in response to reports of ASB, the landlord acted in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The resident stated that the ASB issues affecting his property have been ongoing since 2020 when his neighbour moved in. In correspondence with this Service, he raised concerns about issues in 2021. These were specifically: his neighbour’s son “threatening to kill him,” the landlord sharing his photos with his neighbour without his consent and its advice for him not to stand outside his neighbour’s window. As a general principle, the Ombudsman will consider events up to 12 months prior to a formal complaint being raised to the landlord, this is in line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which sets out the rules which govern our service. For this reason, the Ombudsman’s investigation does not consider any specific events prior to 15 May 2022, which is 12 months before the resident complained to the landlord on 15 May 2023.
  3. The resident said that he has suffered detriment to his health because of the landlord’s handling of ASB either about him or from him. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the impact on the resident’s health in his complaint. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
  4. In correspondence with this Service in March 2024, the resident stated his concerns with his neighbour “installing CCTV”. As this is a separate issue from the complaint raised with the Service, this is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved.
  5. As part of his complaint, the resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s use of his personal data. This is regarding the landlord sharing the resident’s photos with his neighbour in 2021. We cannot consider whether the landlord breached data protection regulations in its handling of the resident’s personal information. This is because the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion falls properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. Breaches of data protection regulations fall under the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). It is therefore advised that the resident contacts the ICO (www.ico.org.uk) for further information if he wishes to pursue this element of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of reports of alleged antisocial behaviour (ASB) about the resident.

  1. The tenancy agreement confirms residents must not cause nuisance to or annoy neighbours in the locality of the property. Residents must not play music so loudly that it causes a nuisance or annoys neighbours. Residents must not bring any illegal drugs into the premises. Residents must comply with any health and safety instructions and must not do anything that might endanger the health and safety of other occupants.
  2. The landlord’s ASB Policy confirms it will respond to reports of ASB in a timely manner. It will undertake action that is “reasonable and proportionate.” The policy has a threshold on which examples of behaviour it will consider as ASB. This includes ASB related to drug or alcohol abuse and extreme noise that is persistent. Its policy is committed to not discriminating against any customer on the grounds of their ethnic origin.
  3. The landlord’s website confirms after receiving a report of ASB it will do the following:
    1. Try and resolve the problems informally and help every involved to resolve their differences. It will offer mediation as a possible solution. It states its awareness that this is not always appropriate. It can treat hate crime and harassment as an urgent issue.
    2. It will work with the police and other agencies to find a solution. It states it cannot investigate criminal behaviour and this should be reported to the police.
    3. It can take legal action on reports of serious or prolonged ASB. It will require substantial evidence to go down this route and will rely on a complainant’s support. Evidence can include a diary sheet, or the “noise app” on a mobile phone.

Reports of the resident “smoking cannabis” and making noise nuisance.

  1. On 4 October 2022, the landlord opened an ASB case against the resident. This was appropriate as a report received by the landlord stated the resident was “smoking cannabis” at his property. As such the report met it’s threshold for ASB in being “related to drug abuse.” There is no evidence at this point or following this if it considered “resolving the problems informally.” It would later go on to give the resident a tenancy warning letter following further reports. However, an informal discussion at this point could have potentially stopped escalation of the reported issues.
  2. On 18 November 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident with a tenancy warning letter. It said this was regarding “consumption of cannabis” and “noise nuisance” from the resident between 5 and 19 November 2022. It is uncertain why the landlord reported this taking place on 19 November 2022 as it sent its letter on 18 November 2022. However, this error notwithstanding, the tenancy warning letter was appropriate as it had supporting evidence for each issue as follows:
    1. Between 5 and 19 November 2022 the landlord received reports on 13 days of the “smell of cannabis”. It attended at the property on an unknown date in this period and “smelled cannabis seeming to come from the resident’s property.” It told him this breached part 3.4 of his tenancy agreement in “not bringing illegal drugs in (his) premises.”
    2. Between 5 and 19 November 2022 it had reviewed noise recordings and diary sheets from the neighbour. As such it found evidence of excessive noise coming from the resident’s property. It told him this breached part 3.6 of his tenancy agreement in “not playing the radio, TV or music so loudly it causes nuisance to a neighbour.”
  3. In the tenancy warning letter, the landlord acted appropriately in asking the resident to “stop using cannabis” and “be considerate of his neighbours.” It gave him sufficient information on how to rectify his alleged behaviour. It told the resident it would “continue to monitor the issue” and would “consider enforcement action if it received further complaints.” It was clear that this could mean it would look to implement an ASB injunction or notice to seek possession (NSP). It explained the resident could lose his tenancy or his home. This was appropriate as under part 4.3.a and Ground 12 of the tenancy agreement the landlord can end the tenancy agreement if the resident does not keep to the obligations of their tenancy agreement.
  4. The tenancy warning letter did offer support and signposting to the resident for drug use and addiction. This was an appropriate response and offered relevant advice in relation to the reports it had received and evidence it had obtained.
  5. On 20 and 22 December 2022, the resident reported his concern to the landlord about its letter of 18 November 2022. He was unhappy with how he was being treated and that he was “being stereotyped due to his colour.” He also stated the letter constituted a “hate crime”. He later stated in his complaint of 15 May 2023 the letter was “racial profiling”. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to the resident’s concerns around 20 or 22 December 2022. He would go on to raise this issue again following this. Had the landlord responded at this time, it would have had the opportunity to stop escalation of the issue. There is no evidence it would discuss the issue with the resident at all, despite him raising it in his complaints of 15 May and 23 June 2023. This caused the issue to remain unresolved and caused distress and uncertainty to the resident. In failing to respond to the issue the landlord failed in its “commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion” in its ASB Policy.
  6. On 3 January 2023, the resident stated he wrote to the landlord before “Christmas” 2022 in response to its tenancy warning letter. The landlord responded appropriately the same day informing him it would investigate any concerns he had raised once it received his correspondence. He would later raise he had received no response to this letter on 21 February and 27 February 2023. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to the resident on either of these occasions. It would have been prudent for the landlord to ask the resident to resend this correspondence as it seemed not to have received it. As it failed to do this, it left the matter unresolved for the resident causing inconvenience and distress to him. This Service has seen no evidence of this letter and is therefore unable to consider the contents of it.
  7. The landlord closed the ASB case against the resident on 27 February 2023. It stated this was in relation to “hate crime” and “noise nuisance.” There is no evidence at this point of the landlord informing the resident it had closed the case against him. This left the resident uncertain about the landlord’s position until it confirmed there were no open cases against him on 16 March 2023.
  8. The landlord took appropriate steps in arranging a meeting with the resident on 16 March 2023. This was to address all his concerns which included its tenancy warning letter of 18 November 2022. At the 16 March 2023 meeting the landlord discussed “noise nuisance” and it also appropriately clarified it had recordings which constituted a breach of his tenancy. This confirmed to the resident how it had made its decision on this point.
  9. The landlord’s notes relating to the meeting on 16 March 2023 do not show the resident raising “consumption of cannabis” as an issue. However, the landlord should have considered discussing this with him based on his call to it on 22 December 2022. This would have ensured the resident was clear on how it had come to its decision about “cannabis consumption.” Furthermore, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response said it had responded to all concerns on 16 March 2023. This was not accurate as it had failed to discuss the cannabis issue at that meeting.
  10. In its meeting of 16 March 2023 and its stage 1 complaint response of 30 May 2023 it stated there were “open ASB cases with the resident as the perpetrator”. However, the neighbour had reported the smell of cannabis on 22 February 2023 and 27 February 2023. There is no evidence of the landlord taking further action on these reports. It is uncertain if it considered “enforcement action” in accordance with its tenancy warning letter as it had received further complaints.
  11. The resident has raised concerns about the police attending his property regarding noise and consumption of cannabis. There is no evidence of the landlord communicating with the police over the matter. It is therefore uncertain if the police attended at the resident’s property because of the landlord’s actions. As such the Ombudsman is unable to offer any further comment on this matter. It must be noted, however, that it is appropriate for landlords to involve the police in matters that are potentially criminal in nature.

Request to move plant pots from window ledge.

  1. On 13 March 2023, the resident’s neighbour reported a plant pot from the resident’s window ledge had fallen due to heavy wind and injured her. On 26 May 2023, the landlord said internally on 13 March 2023 the neighbour had sent the landlord photos. It said this included a broken plant pot and it said, “it believed it had a photo of the neighbour’s (injured) head.” This Service has seen no evidence of these photos and is unable to comment on the accuracy of the landlord’s description.
  2. The landlord investigated the issue and found appropriately that the plant pots constituted a health and safety hazard. It did this in consideration of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) as part of the Housing Act 2004. This states the landlord must consider the risk of harm to any occupier of a dwelling from any deficiency that can give rise to a hazard. It found due to the plant pots’ placement on the window ledge “it would be easy for them to be blown by the wind.” It assessed this was a hazard that could cause harm to the neighbour.
  3. Following the report of 13 March 2023 the landlord acted in an appropriate timescale in speaking with the resident. It discussed the matter at its meeting with him on 16 March 2023 (and would confirm the contents of the meeting in an email to him on 20 March 2023). It informed him the plant pots were a hazard and asked him to remove them. This was an appropriate request to mitigate the risk of harm to the neighbour or anyone standing beneath the window ledge. The landlord also attempted mediation between the resident and the neighbour on the matter during the meeting on 16 March 2023. This was a reasonable step at resolution between the parties. The landlord confirmed to this Service on 24 April 2024 that mediation failed as the issue “caused further upset” to the resident. It stated he believed the landlord “was taking sides.” It was the resident’s prerogative not to continue with mediation.
  4. On 20 March 2023, the resident raised his concerns about being asked to move his plant pots. Evidence shows the landlord wrote to the resident on 23 March 2023 asking him to move the plant pots. However, this Service has not seen evidence of this letter and therefore cannot comment on its contents. The neighbour reported the plant pots were still on the window ledge on 14 April and 9 May 2023. This suggests the resident failed to comply with the landlord’s request to move the plant pots.
  5. The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 May 2023 with a “letter before legal action”. It told him he had 3 days to remove the plant pots, or it would seek an order from court. It explained the resident could face court costs of up to £1600. The landlord’s letter was both proportionate and appropriate as it had given the resident sufficient time to move the plant pots. It also found by failing to remove the plant pots the resident was in breach of his tenancy. It stated under part 4.27 of the tenancy agreement under ‘health and safety’ “you must comply with any health and safety instructions.” It needed to take appropriate action as quickly as possible to mitigate the risk of harm in accordance with the HHSRS under the Housing Act.
  6. The resident complied and moved the plant pots by 16 May 2023 when the landlord inspected the property. The landlord wrote to him on the same day and confirmed to him the matter was closed. This was appropriate and provided a resolution to any concerns the resident had about it taking legal action.
  7. In his complaint of 15 May 2023, the resident raised that he had not seen proof of injuries to the neighbour. The landlord provided no response to this in its stage 1 or 2 complaint responses. The landlord had the opportunity to explain why it could or could not provide photos to the resident. Furthermore, it also had the opportunity to explain its identification of the plant pots as a hazard was based on further risk of harm and not just previous risk of harm. The landlord failed to provide further explanation for these points which left the resident’s concerns unresolved, causing uncertainty and inconvenience to him.
  8. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did provide appropriate detail of its decision to write its letter of 11 May 2023. This explained sufficiently the hazard the plant pots could cause if they fell. It reiterated it would take no further action as reassurance for the resident.
  9. Overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord handled the claims of ASB about the resident in a reasonable manner. It wrote to the resident when it had sufficient evidence of ASB that had met its threshold. It also wrote to him when it had evidence of a hazard at his property and asked him to act. When he failed to do this, it took appropriate action to ensure the plant pots were removed and the potential for risk of harm nullified. It attempted to provide clarification to the resident on the resident’s concerns at a meeting on 16 March 2023 which provided some explanation about its decision making.
  10. The Ombudsman recognises there were some failings in the landlord handling as follows:
    1. It should have considered an informal resolution with the resident when it initially opened the ASB case on 4 October 2022.
    2. It failed to respond to the resident’s specific concerns about its letter of 18 November 2022. It failed to specifically address if it had “racially stereotyped” him or if a “hate crime” had taken place.
    3. It should have followed up on the resident’s missing letter sent at the end of December 2022 and offered him further opportunity to provide this.
    4. It failed to discuss the “cannabis consumption” issue at its meeting of 16 March 2023 or in its stage 1 complaint response.
    5. It failed to manage the resident’s expectations about whether it could provide him photos of damage to the witness, as requested.
  11. Had the landlord addressed each of the failures stated above in a “timely manner” it may have prevented the situation escalating. This would have caused less frustration to the resident. To address these failures, compensation of £200 has been awarded. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where service failure has occurred causing minimal detriment to the resident and the landlord has not appropriately acknowledged all failures.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of alleged antisocial behaviour (ASB) from the resident about his neighbour.

  1. The landlord’s ASB Policy confirms it will use its professional judgment as to whether reports of ASB can be realistically investigated and resolved. When it raises an ASB case it will stay in contact with victims and witnesses, keeping them informed of progress. Hate-related incidents and harassment are included under its threshold for an ASB case. It expects the resident to report all crimes to the police. It expects the resident to report incidents of ASB to it and other relevant agencies. It asks residents to take responsibility for minor disputes and for them to resolve problems between themselves.
  2. The landlord will work with the police, social care departments and other relevant organisations. This is to ensure agencies can perform their statutory duties and protect vulnerable people. The landlord’s staff are trained to identify and prevent safeguarding issues and have a duty to report.
  3. On 19 May 2022, the resident raised that his neighbour was “stamping on his mail” and someone known to his neighbour “follows him”. The resident chose not to raise these issues at this time. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord took no further action at this point. On 13 June 2022, he repeated that his neighbour was “stamping on his mail”. On the same day, the landlord confirmed to him it was installing a mailbox for him on 20 June 2022. This was an appropriate step to resolve the issue and mitigate any third-party contact with the resident’s mail. It is uncertain if this was completed. However following this the resident did not report issues with his mail, which suggests the issue was resolved.
  4. Also, on 13 June 2022 the resident stated he “did not feel safe” and asked for someone to call him back. At this point, it was unclear why the resident felt this way. The resident also called the landlord on 11 August 2022 and asked it to call him back. He said his neighbour had moved his bins and smashed his back window. This met the landlord’s definition of ASB in its policy under “vandalism and damage to property” There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident on either of these instances. In doing so it failed to “stay in touch with the resident as a victim” in a “timely manner.” It failed to establish the facts of his reports to decide whether his reports met its “threshold for ASB.” As a result, it was unable to and failed to communicate as to whether it was taking further action or if it would be opening an ASB case. This caused uncertainty and distress for the resident.
  5. After the resident’s report of 11 August 2022 there is no evidence of further reports of ASB from the resident. The landlord acted appropriately in speaking with the resident on 16 March 2023 as previously discussed. In this meeting, it confirmed there was no open ASB case or “breach of tenancy.” It would later state the same in its stage 1 complaint response. It should have gone further as it could have mitigated against the resident’s complaint that “his neighbour had been harassing him since 2020” and “the landlord was only supporting his neighbour.” It could have clarified in both its responses there were no recent reports from the resident as the reason for there being no open ASB case and why it was taking no further action. It could also have explained why it had not responded to his previous reports of 13 June and 11 August 2022.
  6. In the meeting of 16 March 2023 and its stage 1 response the landlord did appropriately advise him if he should report any hate crime to the police. It also told him it would open a new ASB case if the resident provided evidence of any alleged ASB. Both things were in accordance with its ASB Policy in supporting a “realistic investigation” into alleged ASB.
  7. Between 4 October and 29 November 2022, the landlord in error opened an ASB case. This was related to the resident’s belief his neighbour’s son “threatened to kill” him in 2021. The landlord discovered on 29 November 2022 it had previously investigated this as had the police. It stated as it was a “criminal matter,” and the police were taking no further action it had closed the case. It explained this to the resident’s Member of Parliament on 9 December 2022. This was appropriate in explaining its position on the matter and acknowledging its error in reopening the case in October 2022. It suggested the resident could take legal advice if he was unhappy. This was appropriate in the circumstances.

Safeguarding and consideration for health.

  1. Although on 19 May 2023, the resident did not wish to raise ASB concerns. The landlord completed an appropriate safeguarding referral as he had said his life was in danger. This was a proportionate response and in accordance with the landlord’s ASB Policy. As part of its reconsideration of the resident’s report of “threat to kill” in December 2022, the landlord discussed the support the resident was receiving. It found he was in contact with his GP and receiving medication and therapy. It took no action at this time as the resident was in receipt of sufficient support. This was appropriate and considered the resident’s welfare in accordance with its ASB Policy.
  2. As previously stated, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s reports of alleged ASB on 13 June and 11 August 2022. As such there is no evidence of the landlord completing consideration for safeguarding on these occasions. In failing to do so the landlord missed raising this. Its ASB Policy states it must raise safeguarding concerns where there are “vulnerabilities in the household,” which was evidence in the resident’s case.
  3. On 21 February 2023, the resident said the landlord had offered him no “duty of care.” He also said he was receiving medication from his doctor. The landlord responded in an appropriate timescale as on 27 February 2023 it made an internal support referral. It made this for the resident’s mental health and confirmed to him this would be “picked up in 24 hours”. It is uncertain if this was completed. However, there is no evidence of the resident’s dissatisfaction with this, suggesting it was completed as requested.
  4. The landlord has also spoken with the resident’s family when it has received consent from the resident. It attempted this with the resident’s cousin on 26 July 2022 and with the resident’s sister on 30 January 2023. This was appropriate in engaging with the resident’s support network to support any issues.
  5. In summary the landlord was initially responsive to the resident’s reports and acted appropriately. However, there is no evidence it responded to the resident’s reports on 13 June and 11 August 2022. In doing so it failed to manage his expectations, act in accordance with its ASB Policy or consider support or safeguarding for the resident. It attempted to support the resident by discussing his issues in person. However, it failed to acknowledge its failure to acknowledge his reports in June and August 2022. It also failed to acknowledge this as part of its complaint responses. For these reasons, a determination of service failure has been identified. The landlord will be ordered to apologise to the resident for the breakdown in its ASB process.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) about the resident.
  2. 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 (ASB) about his neighbour.

Orders

  1. The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. A senior member of staff to write an apology to the resident for the overall failures in its service delivery.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £200 compensation. This is for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s identified failures in its response to reports of ASB about him. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider completing a risk assessment of the resident and his property. It must ensure any further appropriate action is taken as a result, including recording any vulnerabilities on its records.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its offer of training for its frontline staff who deal with ASB cases, and considers offering additional training, using the resident’s case as a learning example.