Cross Keys Homes Limited (202205537)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205537

Cross Keys Homes Limited

25 February 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. rent
2. antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance
3. the radiator
4. a heat/carbon monoxide alarm
5. staff and contractor conduct
6. washing lines
7. a “false entry” into the property
8. windows
9. a request to be moved
In addition, we have considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
According to paragraph 42.d of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
We have limited information regarding the resident’s complaint about rent. However, on 20 May 2022 he said his rent “keeps being played with”. In response, the landlord explained that rent usually increased every April. It said the rents were set in accordance with the terms of the resident’s tenancy conditions.
Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent and service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal – Property Chamber (FTT). The Tribunal is able to consider the grounds for dispute, arbitrate, and make binding findings. Because of that, the Tribunal is the more effective avenue to seek a remedy should the resident so wish.
For the reason set out above, the resident’s complaint about rent is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The resident has lived in the property, a 1 bedroomed first floor flat, since 2017. The resident has experienced issues with his mental health which the landlord is aware of.
On 20 May 2022 the resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. He said:
1. “rent keeps being played with”
2. the neighbour had a lot of visitors and there were issues with ASB and parking
3. a bypass had been fitted onto the front radiator
4. a heat/carbon monoxide alarm had been fitted onto the kitchen ceiling
5. a staff member had no respect and engineers could be disrespectful
6. there were washing lines in the garden that did not need to be there
7. the landlord had made a “false entry” into his flat
8. windows had been fitted
9. he had applied to move properties but had been met with excuses by the landlord
In its initial response, dated 6 June 2022, the landlord:
1. said the rent usually increases each April
2. said it had investigated the ASB/noise nuisance reports and urged the resident to use the noise app
3. asked the resident for a photograph of the radiator
4. said the resident and the landlord had “agreed to disagree” regarding the resident’s comments about staff conduct. It also said there was no evidence that engineers had been disrespectful
5. said the concerns about the washing lines had been sent to the relevant team
6. said it had entered the resident’s flat due to a leak
7. said it would not revert to the old windows
8. advised the resident that he needed to wait until there was someone with whom he could mutually exchange properties
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 29 June 2022. In summary, it said:
1. the resident had previously been sent a letter with rent and service charge information. Rent was set in accordance with the tenancy agreement and changed every April
2. the resident had not provided evidence for the landlord to investigate the reported ASB/noise nuisance
3. there were no issues with the radiator and no outstanding repairs
4. there was no evidence regarding the resident’s allegations of staff and contractor conduct
5. it could support the resident to progress a suitable mutual exchange
6. the smoke and carbon monoxide detectors complied with legal obligations
On 16 August 2022 the landlord told the resident that the noise from the neighbours was not excessive and there was no evidence of a tenancy breach. On 28 August 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He also asked to be moved to a 3 bedroomed house.
The resident sent the landlord a noise incident diary which covered the period 1 November 2022 to 8 December 2022. The diary referenced multiple reports of the front door banging. In response, the landlord said the noise was general living noise.
On 28 February 2023 the landlord advised the resident that the radiator was in working order, it had offered to visit on multiple occasions and the ASB case was closed. It said his request for a 3 bedroomed house could not be met as he was a single occupant.
On 7 March 2023 the resident asked again for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The landlord said that until he agreed to meet or engage in a meaningful discussion it could not progress his complaint.
The resident sought our assistance. He asked for the issues with the carbon monoxide and fire alarm and radiators to be resolved. He asked that the landlord respond to his reports in a timely and efficient manner and investigate his ASB reports. In addition, the resident complained that the landlord had not escalated his complaint to stage 2.

Events post completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process

The resident continued to report ASB and asked to be moved. The landlord urged him to engage with the police regarding the alleged harassment. The landlord investigated reports of noise nuisance in relation to a neighbour’s vehicle and offered to meet with the resident on a number of occasions.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident complained to us that the landlord did not escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its internal complaints process. The landlord explained that its approach was in line with its Complaints policy. We acknowledge that this issue was not raised by the resident with the landlord as a stage 1 complaint. However, we have found complaint handling failures with regards to the landlord’s overall approach, which has been investigated below.
As such, our investigation is in accordance with Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme. Paragraph 42.a says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not acted within a reasonable timescale.
We have investigated events from 30 March 2022 until 14 June 2023. This covers the time period from when the landlord required access to the resident’s property to investigate a reported leak until it issued its response titled “Stage one complaint (former) – Repairs / ASB / Other”.

ASB and noise nuisance

We acknowledge the distress that the reported ASB and noise nuisance caused the resident. However, our role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to his reports in line with its policies and procedures. We do not assess whether or not ASB and noise nuisance occurred.
The landlord has an ASB policy. The policy gives examples of the sort of behaviour which could fit into a category of ASB. This includes unreasonable noise nuisance and intimidation or harassment. The policy does not apply where reports of household noise are made. The policy explains that the landlord will use investigative methods to gather evidence including interviews, diary sheets, and noise monitoring equipment. It will work in partnership with the police. In very serious cases of ASB a temporary or permanent move can be considered.
On 20 May 2022 the resident complained about harassment, loud music, lots of visitors, ASB and parking issues. The landlord responded the next day and asked the resident to provide evidence of the noise. This was a reasonable request, however the response was brief and failed to acknowledge the reported harassment and issues with parking and visitors. In addition, we would expect the landlord to have explained to the resident what evidence it required and how to submit it. Overall, the landlord’s response was inadequate. We would also expect the landlord to have started an investigation into the reported harassment within 5 working days as referenced in its ASB policy. There is no evidence that it did so.
On 2 June 2022 the landlord sent the resident information on how to use the noise app. This is a device residents can use to record noise nuisance and send the recording to the landlord. The landlord’s approach was in line with its ASB policy which references the noise app as a way to gather supporting evidence. It is unclear, however, why this information was not sent to the resident in its response dated 21 May 2022.
The landlord listened to the noise recordings provided by the resident. On 7 August 2022 it informed him that it had contacted the neighbour. We have not seen evidence of the landlord’s reasoning for contacting the neighbour or of the outcome of the contact. We expect landlords to maintain robust records. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance the landlord’s ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
On 26 August 2022 the landlord informed the resident that the recordings demonstrated noise transference rather than ASB. It was appropriate that the landlord confirmed the outcome of its investigation. The landlord urged the resident to contact it to arrange a home visit to discuss other supporting evidence he may be able to submit. The landlord’s approach demonstrated a willingness to continue to review matters for the resident. We would, however, also expect to have seen that the landlord explained its approach going forward and the options available to it and under what circumstances, referencing relevant policies, procedures, and best practice. This may have helped to better manage the resident’s expectations.
The resident submitted incident diary sheets which covered the period 1 November 2022 until 8 December 2022. The entries referenced a banging front door. In response, the landlord said this was general living noise. In the absence of any other evidence, this was a reasonable conclusion. The landlord asked the resident to discuss the noise with the neighbours. However, when considering the resident had reported harassment from neighbours, the landlord’s request likely contributed to his distress.
In addition, our Spotlight Report on Noise, published in October 2022, highlighted that although a lack of statutory noise levels limits a landlord’s options, particularly tenancy enforcement action, it does not absolve them of the requirement to explore other suitable resolutions to reduce noise transference. For example, there is no evidence the landlord checked whether there were any repair issues or remedial works it could undertake to help reduce noise transference.
The landlord advised us that mediation was not deemed an appropriate form of resolution. However, its decision making in this respect is not documented. As such, we are unable to determine whether its approach was reasonable. In addition, the landlord’s ASB policy says that the landlord will, if possible, make an initial assessment of any vulnerabilities for its consideration. However, there is no evidence of its attempts to do this. When considering the resident’s individual circumstances, we would expect to have seen that a vulnerability assessment was considered.
On 14 December 2022 the landlord asked the resident if he had reported the harassment to the police. This was an appropriate request in line with the landlord’s ASB policy regarding partnership working with the police. We would also expect the landlord to have signposted the resident to organisations for support in accordance with its ASB policy.
On 28 February 2023 the landlord said the noise recordings showed some noise transference but not beyond what would reasonably be expected. aHaOur Spotlight report on Noise acknowledges that most noise reports concern household noise rather than ASB, yet most landlords handle it under their ASB policy. To handle noise reports that do not meet the statutory threshold, the report recommends that landlords adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management strategy, distinct to the ASB policy, with clear options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships.
On 8 May 2023 the resident said he had been threatened and was scared. He provided a crime reference number. In its response, the landlord said it understood the resident had not engaged with the police investigation and the matter had been closed. There is a lack of information provided to us in this respect. We would expect to have seen, for example, email exchanges between the police and the landlord or case notes that demonstrated effective partnership working. Further, while it was appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to the police, it is unclear what prevented the landlord from investigating the matter itself or offering support to the resident.
On 9 June 2023 the resident referenced that he was suffering from anxiety and depression due to the alleged ASB and noise nuisance. We would expect the landlord to have signposted him to support organisations, alongside his doctor, in accordance with its ASB policy whereby each package of support should be tailored to the particular needs of the person and reviewed throughout the case.
In summary, the landlord demonstrated some good practice. It made multiple attempts to meet with the resident to discuss matters and it followed its ASB policy regarding use of the noise app and incident diaries to inform its decision making. It explained why evidence was required and provided timely responses.
However, there is limited evidence of the landlord’s partnership working or that it considered support that might benefit the resident and assessed his vulnerabilities. At times, its responses were inadequate and failed to fully acknowledge the resident’s concerns. There were some gaps in record keeping and a lack of evidence that the landlord considered options available to it to reduce noise transference.
As such, we have found service failure. An order of £100 compensation is made below in accordance with our published remedies guidance where the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge failures or put them right.

The radiator

Under the 1985 Tenancy Act, landlords must maintain and repair all space and water heating installations in a dwelling-house. The tenancy agreement outlines that the landlord will keep in repair and working order the installations for room heating.
On 20 May 2022 the resident complained about a bypass fitted to the front radiator. In response, the landlord offered to visit. When the resident declined its offer, the landlord asked the resident for a photograph of the radiator. This was a reasonable approach. The landlord demonstrated an attempt to investigate the resident’s concerns.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 29 June 2022. It said it had reviewed the photograph and it was typical for a central radiator not to have a valve. It offered to visit the resident to discuss matters. This was an appropriate response and demonstrated the landlord’s openness to further investigate the resident’s concerns.
On 28 August 2022 the resident said there should be a dial instead of a bypass on the radiator. He subsequently raised concerns about the connection to the thermostat. In response, the landlord explained that his request for a thermostat was not classed as a repair as the radiator was in full working order. The landlord referenced its offer to visit the resident and provided contact details for reporting a repair if required. This was a reasonable approach.
There is no evidence that the resident was without a fully operational radiator. In the circumstances and based on the information available to it, the landlord’s approach was reasonable. As such, there is no evidence of service failure.

The heat/carbon monoxide alarms

The Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (Amendment) Regulations 2022 came into effect on 1 October 2022. From that date, a carbon monoxide alarm was required to be fitted “in any room used as living accommodation which contains a fixed combustion appliance (excluding gas cookers)”.
On 20 May 2022 the resident complained about the heat and carbon monoxide alarms that the landlord fitted to his kitchen ceiling following routine works to an electrical socket (the date of which is unknown). We understand the resident felt the alarms were unnecessary. The landlord phoned the resident and offered to visit him. This was a reasonable approach.
In its stage 1 complaint response, dated 29 June 2022, the landlord explained that the smoke and carbon monoxide detectors had been fitted to comply with legal obligations. While the alarms were fitted prior to it becoming a legal requirement, the landlord would have been aware of the forthcoming legislation. As such, it was not unreasonable that it fitted them in advance and there is no evidence of service failure.

Staff and contractor conduct

It is our role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. This may include conducting interviews and gathering evidence to make an informed decision.
On 20 May 2022 the resident complained to the landlord about the conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff. In addition, he said that engineers were, at times, disrespectful. On 6 June 2022 the landlord advised the resident that he had not provided any evidence to support the allegations about engineers’ behaviour. The landlord’s response was reasonable. However, it would have been good practice for it to have clarified with the resident what information it required to investigate, such as dates and times and a description of events. The landlord offered to meet the resident. It offered to meet with the resident again when it issued its stage 1 complaint response on 29 June 2022. This demonstrated its willingness to understand his concerns.
The landlord reviewed contact between the resident and the staff member. This demonstrated that it took the resident’s concerns seriously. It said it could not find any evidence to support the allegation of unacceptable conduct. The landlord’s response was reasonable when considering the limited information available to it regarding the resident’s complaint.
In summary, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns, requested supporting evidence and conducted a review based on the information available to it. As such, the landlord responded appropriately in the circumstances.

Washing lines

On 20 May 2022 the resident complained about washing lines in the communal garden. We understand that he felt they were were unnecessary. In response, the landlord advised the resident that the washing lines were functional. It said it had sent his concerns to another team. This was a reasonable response in the absence of any further information from the resident. However, we would expect the landlord to have explained to him why it had sent his concerns to another team and what he could expect as a result.
On 12 December 2022 the resident reiterated his complaint about the washing lines. The landlord responded on 14 December 2022. It informed him that the lines would remain in place. While there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord’s decision was unreasonable, we would expect it to have explained to the resident how it reached its decision and referenced its policies and procedures where relevant.
Overall, however, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concern and took appropriate action based on the information available, which it was entitled to do. As such, there is no evidence of service failure.

False entry

The tenancy agreement says residents must allow the landlord or anyone working for it into the home to inspect, carry out repairs and for inspections and maintenance or improvements to the premises or to adjoining properties. The tenancy agreement says the landlord will normally give at least 24 hours’ notice unless access is required in an emergency.
The landlord provided us with repair records which reference a reported leak from the resident’s property into the flat below. On 30 March 2022 the landlord attended but was unable to gain access to the resident’s property. The landlord noted the leak was not severe but was constantly dripping through the ceiling and needed addressed as soon as possible.
On 31 March 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident. This followed its attempts to discuss the leak with the resident on the phone. The landlord said if it was unable to gain access it would have no option but to gain entry to carry out the necessary works. It asked the resident to make contact and provided the telephone number for its repairs team. The landlord’s approach was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord contacted the resident again on 1 April 2022. It asked him to contact its repairs team urgently to arrange access. On 4 April 2022 the landlord noted that water was still leaking into the flat below. The landlord gained entry to the resident’s flat on 6 April 2022 to secure the leak.
On 20 May 2022 the resident complained about the landlord’s “false entry”. In response, the landlord explained it had entered his property because of the leak. It said the resident had been given ample time to contact its repairs team but failed to do so.
The landlord was responsible for resolving the leak in the flat below and acted in accordance with the terms of the tenancy. It attempted to discuss matters with the resident on the phone and subsequently notified him in writing that it would need to gain entry. It gave the resident time for this to be arranged with its repairs team.
While it could understandably be of concern to the resident that the landlord entered his home, the landlord’s actions were proportionate and in line with the tenancy agreement. As such, its approach was reasonable and there is no evidence of service failure.

Windows

The tenancy agreement says the landlord shall keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property including the windowsills and frames. Landlords are entitled to opt to repair damaged items such as windows rather than replacing them. However, the windows should be replaced if they cannot be economically repaired.
The landlord’s repair records reference issues with windows throughout the property. This includes a stuck window latch in the bathroom, reported in January 2020, and issues with a kitchen window in April 2019.
On 20 May 2022 the resident complained about new windows that had been installed. In its response, dated 6 June 2022, the landlord acknowledged that the resident preferred the old windows but said the new ones would not be changed. Limited information has been provided to us regarding this aspect of the resident’s complaint. However, it is reasonable to consider that the windows were replaced as part of a planned maintenance programme or because they were beyond repair. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have clarified this with the resident in its complaint response, referencing its policies and procedures, relevant legislation and good practice.
The resident declined the landlord’s offer to visit and check the windows. In the absence of any other information that demonstrates any detrimental impact to the resident, the landlord’s response was reasonable. There is no evidence of service failure on the landlord’s part.

Request to be moved

The landlord has a Lettings policy. The policy outlines that the landlord is guided by the allocation policies produced in partnership with local authorities. This ensures properties are allocated fairly and transparently according to priority need and agreed criteria.
The Lettings policy says the landlord will identify residents who are under or over occupying a property and offer a transfer. It will actively support applications and encourage mobility through Mutual Exchange. The tenancy agreement says the resident must keep the internal decoration of the property in a good and clean condition.
On 22 May 2022 the resident complained he had been met with excuses from the landlord regarding his application to move. In response, the landlord said he needed to wait for a mutual exchange. This was reasonable advice, however the landlord’s response was brief. We would expect it to have referenced its policies and procedures to explain why other options, such as the emergency transfer policy, were not applicable. This may have helped to better managed the resident’s expectations.
The landlord informed the resident that his request to join the house exchange website, which allows social housing residents to swap homes with one another, was approved in March 2022. It said it could see no reason why his application could not be progressed providing the exchange was to a 1 bedroomed property. This was reasonable and in line with the Lettings policy regarding occupation.
On 25 August 2022 the resident asked to be moved to a 3 bedroomed property. In response, the landlord reiterated that he had a 1 bedroom housing need. It offered to meet him to discuss a long-term solution to his housing situation which was a reasonable approach.
We understand the landlord visited the resident on, or around, 13 September 2022. It subsequently noted that he was not eligible for a direct transfer and that the property did not meet the condition standard required for a transfer. The landlord advised him that once he had decorated to a reasonable standard, it would endeavour to assist with his transfer request. This was a fair approach in accordance with the terms of the tenancy and the landlord’s transfer procedure whereby the resident must keep the internal decoration in a good condition.
Overall, the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable and in accordance with its Letting policy.

The handling of the associated complaint

Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
Our Complaints Handling Code (the “Code”) says that 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. A complaint investigation must be conducted in an impartial manner and the complaint handler must act independently.
In addition, the Code says that landlords must comply with the Equality Act 2010 and may need to adapt normal policies, procedures, or processes to accommodate an individual’s needs.
The Code also says that if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage1, it must progress to stage 2 unless an exclusion ground applies. In instances where a landlord declines to escalate a complaint it must clearly communicate in writing its reasons for not escalating as well as the resident’s right to approach the Ombudsman about its decision.
The landlord has a Complaints policy. The policy says the landlord aims to respond to the resident within 5 working days. If, for whatever reason, this timescale is unlikely to be achieved, the landlord will contact the resident, advising of the reason for the delay and providing an anticipated date of response. The policy explains that sometimes it is appropriate to issue a first and final response to a complaint at stage 1. If this happens the landlord says it will discuss matters with the resident.
The Complaints policy says that a resident can escalate their complaint to stage 2 if they have further evidence/information that they believe affects the outcome. It says escalation is not warranted if no new evidence is provided or if the only reason for escalation is that the complainant does not agree with the outcome at stage 1.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint on 20 May 2022. The landlord responded on 21 May 2022. It thanked the resident for his numerous emails and said that the comments had been noted. It advised the resident that unless the email was in relation to new tenancy matters it was unable to assist. The landlord’s response was unreasonable. We would expect to see that the landlord acknowledged the complaint and clearly communicated any reasons it had for not recording a stage 1 complaint at that time, as well as explaining the resident’s right to approach the Ombudsman about its decision if relevant. The landlord’s response contributed to the resident’s frustration and he subsequently sought assistance with his stage 1 complaint from this Service.
On 6 June 2022 the landlord issued an initial response to the resident’s complaint which, in part, related to staff conduct. The resident alleged that he had been spoken to with no respect at times. The staff member the resident complained about, responded, “Your comments regarding myself – “absolutely horrendous at times” we agreed to disagree”. The landlord’s approach was inappropriate and contrary to the Code which requires the response to be impartial and independent.
The resident complained, in part, about noise nuisance and ASB from more than 1 neighbour, the washing lines, an alleged false entry and new windows. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 29 June 2022, approximately 27 days after the stage 1 complaint was logged. The response failed to address the afore-mentioned issues. This was unreasonable and contrary to the Code. In addition, the landlord responded outside the timescales documented in its Complaints policy.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 28 August 2022. On 31 August 2022, the landlord advised him that without the opportunity to meet and address matters, it was unable to consider escalating his complaint. It said this approach was in line with its complaints process. We acknowledge the resident had provided limited information. We also recognise that he declined the landlord’s offer to meet with it on multiple occasions. Nevertheless, the explanation provided as to why the complaint would not be escalated was inadequate. We would expect the landlord to have provided a detailed explanation setting out the reasons why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process and the right to take that decision to the Ombudsman. This is in accordance with the landlord’s Complaints policy.
On 31 August 2022 the landlord again invited the resident to arrange a home visit with the staff member. When considering that this was the staff member the resident had complained about, it is understandable that he declined the landlord’s offer. When considering the mental health issues the resident disclosed and his repeat rejection of the landlord’s offer to visit, we would expect the landlord to have considered, early on, alternative ways it might be able to progress matters. Our Spotlight Report on Attitudes, Respect and Rights, published January 2024, references the support that Advocacy Services and organisations such as Citizens Advice provide.
In summary, the landlord attempted to meet with the resident to discuss his complaint which was reasonable. However, when it became clear that he did not want to meet, the landlord ought to have considered alternative options. In addition, the stage 1 complaint response failed to address all of the issues the resident raised and was issued 27 working days after the resident’s stage 1 complaint was logged. Further, the landlord failed to demonstrate impartiality in its initial response to the resident’s complaint about staff conduct.
As such, we have made a finding of service failure. An order of redress is made below. The amount ordered is in accordance with our Remedies Guidance whereby the landlord’s actions may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident but he experienced time and trouble, disappointment, and delays.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.d of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about rent is outside our jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. service failure in response to the ASB/noise nuisance
2. no maladministration in response to the radiator
3. no maladministration in response to the heat/carbon monoxide alarm
4. no maladministration in response to staff/contractor conduct
5. no maladministration in response to the washing lines
6. no maladministration in response to an alleged “false entry”
7. no maladministration in response to the windows
8. no maladministration in response to the request to be moved
9. service failure in the handling of the associated complaint

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident total compensation of £200:
1. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of ASB
2. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling
The landlord to provide us with evidence of compliance within 28 days of this report.

Recommendation

It is recommended that:
1. should the resident continue to experience noise nuisance, the landlord contacts him to explain any action it may be able to consider with regards to reducing noise transference pending an inspection
2. the landlord ensures its staff training in complaint handling reflects the requirements of its Complaints policy and this Service’s Code