Tower Hamlets Homes (202222379)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222379

Tower Hamlets Homes

21 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and Hate Crime from a neighbour.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, an arms length management organisation (ALMO), since 2014. The property is a 1 bedroom flat, located on the 2nd floor, directly above the neighbour.

Summary of events

On 15 July 2022, the resident reported ASB and Hate Crime by a neighbour and asked the landlord to speak with them about this. The landlord replied on 27 July 2022, that it would speak to the neighbour and told the resident to report any Hate Crime or threats to the Police.
The landlord visited the resident on 2 August 2022 and told him to report any harassment or Hate Crime to the Police and its ASB team. It agreed it would speak to the neighbour and confirmed that it would update him once it had done so.
On 10 August 2022 the landlord met with the neighbour to discuss the resident’s allegations, which the neighbour denied. The following day, the resident asked the landlord if it had spoken with his neighbour and the landlord confirmed that it had and gave details about the neighbour’s response.
On 17 August 2022, the resident asked if his concerns were being taken seriously and made a statement that caused the landlord to be concerned for his welfare. The landlord contacted the resident the following day and told him it would make a referral to his GP, which it did that day, and adult social care, which it did 5 days later.
On 18 August 2022 the landlord suggested it could arrange a meeting with the resident and his neighbour to discuss any issues. The resident replied that he had been victimised by the neighbour for 6 years and had nothing to say to them. The landlord had ignored him and was treating the neighbour as the victim and him as the cause of the problems. The following day, the landlord replied that it was not aware of what had gone on in the past but it had addressed the resident’s concerns and updated him.
After further contact from the resident on 29 August 2022, the landlord forwarded this to its ASB team the following day, and asked if a referral needed to be made regarding his reports of Hate Crime. There is no record of any response being received.
On 1 September 2022, the resident made a complaint to the landlord (the first complaint). The resident said that he had reported harassment and Hate Crime by a neighbour and when the landlord initially visited him, it gave him reassurance and made promises, but did not deliver on these. It had failed to properly investigate the matter and had accepted his neighbour’s version of events. The member of staff dealing with the matter had been aggressive in their communication and talked down to him. In another communication the same day, the resident said that he believed the member of staff was prejudiced towards him and asked for another officer to deal with his issues.
Three days later, the resident told the landlord that it had failed to consider previous incidents that occurred in 2014 and when he brought these up, the member of staff was not aware of the issues. He raised concerns about the neighbour’s response and pointed out inconsistencies, which showed the neighbour was not being truthful. The landlord had committed to warn the neighbour about their behaviour, but had failed to do this. The next day, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
Between 7 and 14 September 2022, there was contact between the landlord and resident regarding a telephone appointment to discuss his complaint. This resulted in a telephone call on 14 September 2022, which the landlord noted was not answered. The resident confirmed that the landlord called, but said it hung up before giving him time to answer.
On 15 September 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response, which confirmed the actions it had taken to investigate the resident’s reports. It had told him to report the issues to the Police and landlord ASB team but there was no record that he had done so. Once he did this, it would agree an action plan to support him to resolve the issues.
The next day the resident asked to escalate his complaint. He said that staff had failed to properly investigate his reports and the landlord had discriminated against him and blamed him for the problems. He chased a response to his request to escalate on 20 September 2022 and 3 days later he said that the landlord had not supported him and staff had not acted impartially. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 28 September 2022.
On 6 October 2022, the resident asked for an update on his complaint. Two days later, the landlord confirmed that a full investigation would be carried out and provided the name of the staff member who would be doing this.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 17 October 2022. It had received some recent reports from the resident and made a number of attempts to contact him to discuss these, but had not always been able to do so. It provided contact details for the Police and relevant landlord departments (ASB and Hate Crime teams) for him to report these issues so they could be logged and investigated. There was no evidence that landlord staff had discriminated against him. Staff had acted professionally and tried to help him resolve the issues.
On 23 December 2022, the resident reported a Hate Crime incident that occurred the previous month to the landlord’s ASB team. Six days later, he asked the neighbourhood team why it had not been in contact regarding this incident. It replied on 3 January 2023 and advised him to report this to its ASB team, which the resident said he had done, but had not heard back from them.
The following day, the landlord’s neighbourhood team forwarded the resident’s report of Hate Crime to its ASB team and on 11 January 2023, an ASB case was opened. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s report of Hate Crime on 12 January 2023 and provided diary sheets for him to record details of further incidents.
Four days later, the landlord spoke to the resident about his report. It completed an ‘ASB vulnerability and harm assessment’, which it told him was high. It offered to refer him to Victim Support, which he declined as the Police had already referred him. It discussed other possible support referrals, including a referral to a ‘Hate Incident Panel’, which the resident declined. It agreed to contact the Police to confirm the outcome of their investigation, which it did that day.
The resident made a second complaint to the landlord on 19 January 2023. He said that staff had failed to properly investigate his concerns, called him a liar and not acted impartially. He had been made to feel like he was the problem and treated in a biased way. In a recent call he had been interrogated aggressively and been treated inconsiderately. He did not trust that the landlord would resolve the issue and asked for someone else to handle his case. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint 5 days later.
On 25 January 2023, the landlord told the resident that his complaint covered issues previously responded to in October 2022, under the first complaint. He had reached the end of its internal complaints process and could escalate his complaint to this Service if he wanted to pursue this further. The resident replied the same day that it had not addressed all issues via the first complaint and asked for a further investigation to be carried out.
Two days later, the resident told the landlord that the Police were not taking further action against the neighbour. He asked it to proceed with its investigation and when the neighbour would be interviewed. The landlord asked the Police for an update on 30 January 2023 and received a response the following day, confirming that no further action was being taken.
On 2 February 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the second complaint, which said:
1. ASB officers often had to ask direct and probing questions as part of the investigation. They remained impartial and reached conclusions based on facts and evidence. It understood this could be uncomfortable and upsetting.
2. It had conducted a review of the resident’s case, and spoken with him and the officer dealing with the case. It was satisfied that it had followed the correct procedures, taken reasonable steps to investigate and responded in full to his email communications. All of these were done within the required timescales.
3. There was no evidence that its staff had called him a liar and they had strongly denied this. They had only responded to his concerns about another member of staff, stating that they had found them to be professional.
4. It could be detrimental to an ongoing investigation to reassign his case to another member of the team, but in light of his concerns it had asked a more senior member of staff to oversee the management of this until the case was closed.
5. It was satisfied that its staff had acted appropriately and professionally and did not uphold his complaint.
The resident asked to escalate the second complaint on 10 February 2023. He said he had been interviewed by a member of staff aggressively and indirectly called a liar. The landlord’s lack of action had made the situation worse and it had failed to consider previous reports made in 2014, which was evidence of the neighbour’s prejudice. The landlord acknowledged this 11 days later.
The landlord sent a warning letter to the neighbour on 14 February 2023.
The resident asked for an update on his ASB case on 20 February 2023 and on 1 March 2023, the landlord told him that the case had been closed. It said it would rely on the outcome of the Police investigation to take action for breach of tenancy and the Police had advised that no charges had been brought and the case was closed. It had written to the neighbour reminding them to adhere to the terms of their tenancy.
On 22 March 2023, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding to his stage 2 complaint and confirmed it would carry out a full investigation. The following month the resident chased the response and the landlord replied that it had a staff shortage, which had caused the delay and apologised for this. It would respond by the end of the week.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the second complaint on 2 May 2023, which said there was no evidence of any misconduct by staff and no fault with the outcome of the stage 1 complaint, so the findings remained the same.
On 17 May 2023, the resident made a report of ASB to the landlord, which it acknowledged the following day and provided diary sheets. The landlord said it tried contacting the resident on 23 May 2023 but was unable to speak with him.
The resident made a further report of ASB on 5 June 2023 and asked when someone would contact him as no one had been in touch. The landlord said it tried contacting him on 6 and 9 June 2023 but was unable to speak with him. Later that month, the resident made a further report of ASB and asked when someone would be contacting him.
On 11 August 2023, the resident made a third complaint to the landlord. He said that he had reported harassment and Hate Crime in May and June 2023 but the landlord had shown no interest and done nothing in response to this. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 3 days later and said that it tried calling the resident on 16 and 18 August 2023, but was unable to speak with him.
On 25 August 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the third complaint. It had addressed his reports made in May 2023 with the neighbour and these were denied. It had not received any reports from the Police. It was not able to progress the case further due to insufficient evidence. Neighbour disputes were not considered ASB or harassment, although it recognised these could be distressing. It had previously offered to make support referrals but these were declined by him and it reoffered these as options.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint the same day. He said that his complaint was about the lack of contact to his reports in May and June 2023, but the landlord had not addressed this and covered other issues previously complained about.
In late August 2023, the landlord responded to a query from the local authority community safety unit (CSU) regarding the resident’s community trigger activation. The landlord said it had contacted the resident in response to his reports using the number provided on the diary sheets. However, it had subsequently identified that there was an error in the number and it believed this was the reason it had not been able to speak with him on any of the occasions it had called.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 6 September 2023 and told him that, due to staff shortages, its current response time was around 30 working days and apologised for this.
On 8 September 2023, the landlord invited the resident to a meeting to discuss the ASB and Hate Crime and what support it could provide.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the third complaint on 26 September 2023, which said that the report made in May 2023 would not be classified as ASB. It had offered him support, which he had declined.
In September and October 2023, the resident asked the landlord why no one had contacted him in response to his reports in May 2023 and that it had lied about trying to contact him on the wrong number. On 31 October 2023, the landlord told the resident it had been trying to get in contact with him regarding his ASB case and would contact him again by phone and email.
The following month, the landlord asked the resident to make contact by a specified date, otherwise it would assume the matter was resolved and close the ASB case.
In November 2023, the landlord met with the local authority community safety team to discuss the resident’s concerns and wrote to him suggesting mediation with his neighbour.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident first reported problems with ASB and Hate Crime to the landlord in 2014. It is important that complaints are brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable time of the problem occurring, usually within 12 months. This is so that the landlord has an opportunity to resolve the issues whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate them (reflected at paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme).
The resident’s initial complaint to the landlord was made in September 2022, so the scope of this investigation has included relevant events 12 months prior to this. Anything that happened before this date has been considered for context but not formally assessed or determined as part of this investigation.
The Housing Ombudsman can consider complaints about local authorities’ housing activities in so far as they relate to the provision or management of social housing (paragraph 41(d) of the Scheme). All other complaints about local authorities fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Therefore, whilst the resident reported his concerns about ASB and Hate Crime to both his landlord and the CSU, this Service has only investigated the actions of the landlord. Details of the resident’s interactions with the CSU have been referenced only in so far as they have informed or impacted upon the landlord’s actions. If the resident wishes to pursue a complaint about the actions of the CSU, he may wish to contact the LGSCO.
The resident has told the landlord that this matter has negatively affected his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. He may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and Hate Crime from a neighbour

The resident’s reports of threats and Hate Crime would have been classified as ASB in line with the landlord’s ASB policy at the time, which said that incidents of this nature would always be considered ASB. The resident reported other behaviours, including blocking of his deliveries and monitoring his comings and goings from the block, which in isolation, may not have been classified as ASB. However, he reported these as part of a wider pattern of harassment and Hate Crime by the neighbour, which the landlord’s policy confirmed would be considered ASB. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to deal with all of the resident’s reports as ASB.
As the resident’s reports fell under the definition of ASB, it would have been sensible for these to be dealt with by its specialist ASB team. The landlord has told the resident on a number of occasions to report his concerns directly to its ASB team. However, as he had made the reports to the landlord, it would have been appropriate for it to pass these on to the correct team, rather than placing an additional burden on the resident to make further reports.
It is understandable that landlords have various departments, with different responsibilities, but it is not the resident’s responsibility to have a detailed understanding of the inner workings of the landlord. Where a resident makes a report to the landlord, it is reasonable that the landlord should forward the report to the appropriate department to be actioned. While the landlord did this in August 2022 and January 2023, there is no evidence that this resulted in any action being taken by the ASB team in August 2022.
In August 2023, the landlord referred to the matter as a neighbour dispute within its complaint response. However, considering the resident was reporting incidents as a wider patter of harassment and Hate Crime, this was dismissive of his concerns and insensitive. The landlord’s ASB policy at the time said that it would adopt a victim centred approach to reports of ASB and Hate Crime but this response failed to do that and caused the resident to feel let down by the landlord.
Similarly, in September 2023, the landlord told the resident that his report in May 2023 would not be classed as ASB, but this was contradictory to its response at the time, which was to log and acknowledge the ASB report. The landlord’s inconsistent approach to the resident’s reports is confusing and caused upset to the resident as he felt they were trivialising and dismissing his reports, which he had clearly identified as being Hate related. This amounts to maladministration and an order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on Hate Crime, with a focus on adopting a victim centred approach to this.
The incidents reported by the resident would have been categorised as ‘level 1’ in line with its ASB policy at the time, which were high priority and required the landlord to contact the resident within 24 hours to carry out an interview, risk assessment and agree an action plan. From the records provided, that did not happen when the resident made reports in July 2022 and December 2022, with contact being made in 12 and 11 working days respectively.
Similarly, the landlord’s policy committed that it would record and acknowledge reports within 1 working day of receipt, which it did not do on either occasion. The landlord’s failure to comply with its ASB policy and delay in contacting the resident amounts to maladministration and was upsetting for him, particularly considering the seriousness of the issues he was reporting.
The resident said that he reported the Hate Crime incident that occurred in November 2022 to the landlord on the day it happened. However, the records provided do not show this and the report provided by the resident shows that he reported this to the local authority CSU. This is separate from the landlord and information would not automatically be shared with the landlord for action to be taken.
When the resident made a further report of ASB in May 2023, the landlord did log and acknowledge this within the committed 1 day timeframe set out in its ASB policy. It said it made contact with the resident on 3 occasions in May and June 2023, but it has been unable to provide evidence of this to the Ombudsman when asked. The landlord’s ASB policy said it would keep comprehensive records of all contact with involved parties, but that did not happen in this case and this amounts to maladministration.
The landlord has said the resident may not have received any calls in May, June and August 2023 due to an error in the number being used, that had been provided on the diary sheets. The Ombudsman has confirmed that there was an error in the number provided and so the landlord’s explanation is reasonable. However, without records of the calls, there is no evidence to support the landlord’s claim that it did attempt to make contact with the resident on these dates, regardless of what number it may have used. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on the importance of keeping detailed records of all contacts in ASB cases.
The lack of contact made the resident feel ignored and let down by the landlord. When he raised this lack of contact via the formal complaints process, the landlord failed to address this within its responses. The resident only became aware of the landlord’s explanation for why he had not received contact via the local authority CSU response to his community trigger activation. This made him feel ignored and that the landlord was not being truthful about its attempts to contact him.
The landlord’s ASB policy said it would carry out a risk assessment for victims of ASB to identify support required. It did this in January 2023, when the matter was referred to its specialist ASB team, but failed to do so in July 2022 when the matter was dealt with by a different department. This is a concern considering the serious nature of the issues being reported and highlights the importance of ensuring that reports of this nature are dealt with by the specialist ASB department. The landlord’s failure to carry out the required risk assessment in July 2022, meant that the resident was left unsupported and amounts to maladministration.
While support for the ASB issues was not assessed or provided in July 2022, the landlord did take appropriate action to safeguard the resident in August 2022, by referring him to support services, which showed that it took the safeguarding concerns seriously. It has also spoken with, and issued a warning letter to, the neighbour, offered support and liaised with the Police; all of which were reasonable and in line with its ASB policy at the time.
The landlord has recently told this Service that it had not suggested mediation to the resident as it did not believe this was appropriate considering the nature of his reports. This was a sensible explanation, but the evidence provided shows that mediation was offered in November 2023 and that it suggested arranging a meeting with the neighbour in August 2022. This conflicting information raises concerns about the landlord’s general oversight of what has happened in this case and its decision making, as suggesting mediation or a meeting in response to reports of Hate Crime is inappropriate and insensitive.
Similarly, the landlord suggested that the resident should inform his neighbour when he would be having deliveries. However, as the resident had reported aggressive and threatening behaviour from the neighbour as a form of Hate Crime, this was not an appropriate suggestion to make.
The landlord told the resident that it would rely on the outcome of a Police investigation to take action for breach of tenancy and because the Police had taken no action, the landlord could not take action. While reasonable that the landlord may be guided by the outcome of a Police investigation, this should not automatically be used to determine the outcome of the landlord’s investigation, and it is important that reasonable steps are taken by the landlord to investigate any incidents reported itself.
In this case, while the landlord spoke to the neighbour about the incident on 19 November 2022, there is no record that it formally interviewed them about this which would have been appropriate. Instead, it concluded its investigation based on the Police outcome, which made the resident feel that it was not taking the matter seriously.
The landlord said it investigated the resident’s reports in May 2023 by speaking with the neighbour but it has been unable to provide a record of these conversations. It said no reports were received from the Police, but the resident has provided Police reference numbers and so it would have been appropriate for the landlord to make enquiries with the Police regarding these reports. Overall, the landlord’s investigation into the resident’s reports have been cursory, which has left the resident feeling unsupported and let down.
The resident has raised concerns about the thoroughness of the landlord’s investigations into his reports as part of his formal complaints, but there is no record that these specific concerns were addressed or responded to. This was upsetting for the resident and made him believe that the landlord was favouring his neighbour over him. From the records provided, there is no evidence that the landlord favoured the neighbour, but it is understandable why the resident believes this, as the landlord has failed to address his concerns raised, which has left him with unanswered questions.
The resident has said that he wants the landlord to take action against his neighbour but the landlord has told him there is insufficient evidence to do so. While frustrating for the resident, the landlord was entitled to reach this conclusion. However, it could then have considered whether there were any other non-legal actions it could take including implementing an acceptable behaviour agreement or good neighbour contract. Both options were set out in its ASB policy at the time and would have been sensible actions to consider in this case.
The landlord’s ASB policy commits that level 1 cases would be reviewed every 10 days, but there is no record that this happened while the ASB case was open between January and March 2022 and on at least 1 occasion, the resident had to chase for an update on progress. It is important in ASB cases that landlords make proactive contact with residents to review cases and provide updates. This ensures the landlord is kept up to date with progress and also acts as a form of support for the resident. The landlord’s failure to do this or carry out reviews as committed in its ASB policy amounts to maladministration. This was upsetting for the resident and made him feel that the landlord was not treating the matter seriously.
Since the ASB case was opened in May 2023, there is no record that regular reviews have been carried out as is committed in the landlord’s ASB policy. While contact was attempted in August 2023, this was only after the resident made a formal complaint. In September, October and November 2023, the landlord sent letters to the resident, but recent updates from him suggest that he did not receive these. It is not clear why the landlord has not continued to communicate with the resident via email, which has always been his primary method of contact.
The letter in October 2023 said the landlord had been trying to contact the resident, but there is no record of any phone call attempts after the ones made in August 2023 so it is not clear what this was referring to. It committed to continue trying to contact him by phone and email but there is no record that this happened and the resident has told this Service that he received no contact from the landlord. The inconsistent approach to contact has left the resident feeling ignored and amounts to maladministration.
The resident has raised concerns about staff conduct as part of his formal complaints. The Ombudsman’s investigation into this issue has focused on how the landlord responded to these concerns, rather than the actual conduct of staff. Staff conduct is an issue for the landlord to address internally and it is not for the Ombudsman to investigate directly.
When the resident raised concerns about staff conduct in the first complaint in September 2022, including discrimination, the landlord offered to speak with him, which was appropriate and showed that it wanted to fully understand the issues and was taking these seriously. While a call was arranged, this did not go ahead and the landlord made no attempts to reschedule or rearrange and issued the response the following day, which was vague and only said that there was no evidence to support his claims. The response did not give any detail about what investigation had been carried out or any response to the specific concerns raised. This was frustrating for the resident and furthered his belief that he was being treated unfairly.
In contrast to this, when the resident raised concerns about staff conduct in the second complaint in January 2023, the stage 1 response provided a detailed response to the specific concerns and provided explanations for why staff had acted in a certain way, which was reasonable.
One of the resident’s concerns raised was in relation to staff not being aware of historic reports of Hate Crime made in 2014. He believed the existence of these reports, was evidence in support of the current incidents being reported. When dealing with new ASB reports, it is important that landlords review their records to identify whether there had been previous reports of the same or similar nature made. While these checks should be made, it is understandable that there will be a time limit on how far back the landlord would go.
In this case, considering the length of time that had passed was around 8 years, it was reasonable that landlord staff may not have been aware of these incidents as any checks carried out, would not have gone back that far. It would have been useful if the landlord had explained this to the resident and confirmed that the existence of previous, historic reports of a similar nature, were not in themselves evidence of ongoing ASB or Hate Crime. The landlord’s failure to address this concern made the resident feel that it was denying the existence of the previous reports and caused him to lose trust in landlord staff.
When the resident asked for his case to be reallocated to a new member of staff, the landlord explained that it would not do this to ensure consistency. While understandable, it is important to take resident’s concerns seriously and, where possible, make staff changes to ensure a productive and trusting relationship going forward. In this case, the landlord agreed to change the member of staff overseeing the case in February 2023, which was sensible as the resident had raised concerns about staff not acting impartially. However, it then failed to follow up until after the resident chased an update, which was disappointing for him.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter and orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £500 compensation; which is appropriate in the circumstances and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
A further order has been made for the landlord to meet with the resident to discuss the current position regarding the ASB, complete a risk assessment and agree an action and communication plan going forward in line with its current ASB policy. This meeting must be carried out by a staff member not previously involved in the ASB cases or complaints.

Complaint handling

The resident has gone through the landlord’s internal complaints process on 3 occasions in 2022 and 2023. The landlord’s complaints policies for these periods confirmed that it would acknowledge all complaints and escalation requests within 48 hours. However, on all occasions, the landlord failed to do this and acknowledged the resident’s complaints and escalation requests between 3 and 12 days. This amounts to maladministration and was disappointing for the resident, making him lose confidence in the landlord’s complaint handling process.
For the first complaint, the landlord responded in 11 working days at stage 1 and 21 working days at stage 2, which was 1 day over the committed timeframes of 10 working days for stage 1 and 20 working days for stage 2, set out in its complaints policy at the time. Therefore, this would be considered a minor delay.
When the resident made the second complaint, the landlord initially told him this would not be investigated as it covered issues already addressed under the first complaint. While landlords are entitled to decline to investigate issues already investigated via its complaints process, it is important that it properly assesses new complaints to identify whether any new areas of concern have been raised.
In this case, the resident had raised new concerns about staff conduct and so it was appropriate that a further investigation be carried out. While appropriate that this ultimately happened, it was only after the resident challenged the landlord and this should not have been necessary. This amounts to maladministration and was frustrating for the resident, and made him believe the landlord was not interested in putting things right for him. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on complaint handling.
For the second complaint, the landlord responded in 11 working days at stage 1, which was again 1 day over the committed 10 working day timeframe set out in its complaints policy, and so a minor delay.
The stage 2 complaint was responded to in 55 days, which was significantly over the committed timeframe of 20 working days set out in its complaints policy. The landlord did update the resident about the delay after 29 days, but it failed to provide a revised timeframe and it was only after the resident chased this up several weeks later that the response was provided. This was frustrating for the resident and amounts to maladministration. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £300 compensation, which is considered reasonable in the circumstances and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
For the third complaint, the landlord responded in 11 working days at stage 1 and 22 days at stage 2, both of which were slightly over the committed response times of 10 and 20 working days set out in its complaints policy, and so only minor delays. While the landlord’s acknowledgement of the stage 2 escalation was delayed, it told the resident that there were delays and extended the response time to 30 working days, which meant that its response was provided in the extended timescale given.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of ASB and Hate Crime from a neighbour.
2. Formal complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not respond to or manage the resident’s reports of ASB and Hate Crime from a neighbour in line with its ASB policy at the time. It did not always properly respond to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct and its failure to provide regular and consistent communication has left the resident feeling ignored and made him lose trust in the landlord.
There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling, specifically in it acknowledging his complaints and in the stage 2 response issued in May 2023.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for its handling of his reports of ASB and Hate Crime from a neighbour and complaint handling.
2. Pay the resident £800 compensation (£500 for its handling of his reports of ASB and Hate Crime from a neighbour and £300 for its complaint handling).
3. Meet with the resident to discuss the current position regarding the ASB, complete a risk assessment and agree an action and communication plan going forward in line with its current ASB policy. This meeting to be with a member of staff not previously involved in the ASB cases or complaints. A written update to be provided to the resident following the contact to confirm what was agreed and a timescale for any follow on actions to be completed.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders, to this Service, within 4 weeks.
Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide staff training on:
1. Hate Crime, with a focus on adopting a victim centred approach to this.
2. The importance of keeping detailed records of all contacts and actions in ASB cases.
3. Complaint handling.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders, to this Service, within 8 weeks.