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

Eastlight Community Homes Limited (202334050)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334050

Eastlight Community Homes Limited

16 December 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour.
    2. Request to move.
    3. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, and the property is a 2bedroom house that formed part of a new build development. The tenancy agreement is dated July 2020 and lists the resident’s daughter as permitted to live at the property and form part of the household. The resident has vulnerabilities in relation to mental health and mobility. This case relates to the resident’s reports of ASB from a neighbour and her request to be rehoused into a different 2bedroom property.
  2. The resident reported ASB from the neighbour in relation to a barking dog, dog fouling, and noise from domestic abuse. For the purpose of this report the neighbour and their partner will be referred to as the neighbour.
  3. The case notes show that the resident reported ASB on 9 May 2022 in relation to a barking dog, and on 6 June 2022 she said that the neighbour attempted to enter her property and broke the fence. She said she did not report this to the police as she was afraid. The case notes show that the landlord said it would assist the resident and advised her to call the police if she felt unsafe.
  4. The landlord carried out a risk assessment of the case and prepared an action plan. It also asked the resident to complete diary sheets of any incidents. On 24 May 2022, the resident advised the landlord that she did not like living at the property as there was an alleyway at the side which gave her security concerns. The landlord advised the resident to register for a move on its rehousing system. The case was closed on 29 June 2022 and a closure letter was sent.
  5. On 26 July 2022, the landlord contacted the resident in relation to what tenancy sustainment support was available to her. This included referrals to health services including mental health. On 11 August 2022, the landlord visited the resident in relation to the support it could provide her, and it made referrals to external support agencies including social services.
  6. On 6 September 2022, the resident advised the landlord that she had reported the neighbour to the police for attempting to enter the property and breaking the fence. On 28 September 2022, the police contacted the landlord advising it was not taking any further action in relation to the matter and recommended security measures.
  7. Between November 2022 and March 2023, the landlord continued to provide tenancy sustainment support to the resident, with this ending on 22 March 2023. On 2 May 2023, the resident’s rehousing application was refused.
  8. On 30 May 2023, the resident reported that she could hear domestic abuse from the neighbour. The case notes say that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her report and subsequently closed the case. In June 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that she was afraid of the neighbour and requested the gate height be raised. A risk assessment and action plan was carried out with the notes saying that the resident was being supported by the mental health team. The landlord advised her that she did not qualify for a management move as she was not at risk of harm.
  9. On 27 June 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint and requested information on the landlord’s criteria for a management move. The landlord advised her on 17 July 2023 that it was unable to influence the local authority’s assessment, which said she needed 1 bedroom.
  10. The gate height was raised on 18 July 2023 and a stage 1 response was sent the same day. The landlord outlined the action it had taken, including asking the resident to complete diary sheets and assisting with her housing application. It said it would continue to investigate any issues raised and take appropriate action.
  11. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 27 June 2023. Between 14 September 2023 and 23 February 2024, the following events took place:
    1. A risk assessment was carried out by the landlord following further reports of ASB and weekly contact was agreed.
    2. The landlord visited the neighbour in relation to the barking dogs and dog fouling.
    3. The resident made further reports of ASB, and visits were made to her to discuss housing options.
    4. The resident chased a stage 2 response 8 times.
  12. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 24 February 2024. It outlined its understanding of the resident’s complaint and accepted that it had initially failed to respond at stage 2. It offered £50 compensation in recognition of this. It went on to explain why approval was not given for a 2bedroom property and that it would assist her in challenging this with the local authority.
  13. The resident has advised this Service that she was unhappy with the landlord’s response because her daughter had never lived with her and she felt this had not prevented her from qualifying for a 2-bedroom property previously.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The residents complaint relates partly to the bedroom entitlement she was allocated. She advised this Service that her daughter had never lived with her, however at the tenancy sign up she advised the landlord that her daughter would be staying over at the property 3-4 nights per week as her carer. Paragraph 41d of the Scheme says the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints that concern local authorities which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing. This includes complaints about applications for rehousing, assessment of such applications and the banding or bedroom entitlement. Such complaints are the responsibility of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Therefore, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s communication with the resident in relation to the matter and whether it followed any applicable policies.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move

  1. It is recognised that there is a shortage of social housing across England. Landlords are, therefore, required to manage their stock effectively. This means allocating homes to those most in need. The key questions for this investigation are whether the landlord followed its policy and procedure, treated the resident fairly, and communicated with her effectively.
  2. The landlord’s empty home and allocation policy says that it works in partnership with local authorities and the local county council to manage applications for housing, and each partner operates a transparent decision-making and appeals process. Additionally, it says that it operates a clear application, decision-making and appeals process for mutual exchanges and management moves.
  3. The resident advised the landlord that she was unhappy with the property on 24 May 2022. This was because she received news from the developer that a footpath was to be made beside the property, and this caused her anxiety. On 30 May 2022, the landlord informed the resident it had no authority over the developers plans and advised her to register for a move on its rehousing system. The developer does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, so we cannot make any orders or findings in regard to its actions. The landlord acted appropriately by explaining that it was the developer’s decision to put in the footpath and that the matter was therefore out of its control. It also suggested the resident consider registering for a move, which was resolution focused.
  4. On 4 November 2022, the landlord visited the resident to assist her with her rehousing application, including making a referral to occupational therapy. This was appropriate and demonstrated that the landlord was actively supporting the resident in her application request. An internal email on 2 May 2023 said that the housing application had been refused for the tenant to be rehoused into a 2 bedroom property. As outlined above, the complaint about the decision on the housing application will not be assessed.
  5. The case notes show that on 19 June 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and requested to move. She said that she had had difficulty registering on its homeswapper system. The landlord contacted the resident on 21 June 2023, with the case notes saying that the resident was “positive and had joined homeswapper”. The landlord responded within 2 days, which was reasonable, and confirmed that the resident was registered on its systems.
  6. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 23 June 2023. She then provided additional information on 3 July 2023 and requested details of the criteria for a management move. The mental health team contacted the landlord on 3 July 2023 saying that the resident had requested assistance for a move and was unclear of what she needed to do. The case notes show that the landlord responded on 17 July 2023 saying that it was unable to influence the local authority’s assessment in recommending a 1bedroom property. This was appropriate. However, there is no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with information on its criteria for a management move. It should have provided this information, and in doing so followed its policy by being clear on the application, decision-making and appeals process for management moves.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 18 July 2023, outlining the action it had taken and confirming it would assist the resident in appealing the banding decision. It said that the resident would need to provide the local authority with the relevant information which supported her requirements for a 2-bedroom property. It also provided contact details, saying it would assist her with the application and any appeal to the local authority. This was appropriate, as it took account of the resident’s individual circumstances, needs, and concerns. Nevertheless, it again failed to provide the resident with any information in relation to a management move which was not appropriate. A recommendation has been made in relation to this.
  8. The resident requested to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 27 July 2023, saying she would like to be moved. She again contacted the landlord on 23 October 2023. The case notes show that the landlord visited the resident on 22 November 2023 to discuss her housing options. It explained that the local authority “vetted” applications and banding. It said that the resident should discuss the suitability of the report in relation to her disability with the local authority. This was appropriate, and by visiting the resident the landlord demonstrated it was taking her concerns seriously. A visit was also a good way to clearly explain what her options were and how it could assist her.
  9. The landlord liaised with the resident’s doctor on 7 December 2023 in relation to her mobility issues. The following day it made a referral to the fire service, as the case notes said that the resident struggled with the stairs and spent most time on the first floor of the property. It also made another occupational therapy referral as the resident had said her health had deteriorated. The landlord acted appropriately in making the referral to the fire service given the concerns raised in relation to her mobility. It also acted appropriately in making another referral to occupational therapy so that an updated assessment could be carried out.
  10. A meeting was held with the resident on 23 January 2024 to assist her with her medical application. This was appropriate and demonstrated that the landlord was actively seeking to assist the resident as outlined in its stage 1 response.
  11. The case notes show that the occupational therapy report was sent to the resident on 31 January 2024. This did not support the resident’s need for a 2bedroom property. The resident contacted the landlord on 12 February 2024 saying that she was unhappy that she had not previously been advised she was overoccupying the property. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 13 February 2024. It said that while the occupational therapy referral recognised the need for adaptions to be made to any new home, it did not support the resident’s request for a 2-bedroom property. This was reasonable given the landlord was acting on the information provided from a professional in the related field of expertise.
  12. On 19 February 2024, an internal email was sent saying the landlord should check the original application to see if the resident’s daughter was listed on it. This Service was provided with a copy of the original application and tenancy agreement which was dated July 2020. This lists the resident’s daughter as permitted to live at the property and form part of the household.
  13. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 24 February 2024. It outlined its understanding of the complaint and the action it had taken to assist the resident in challenging the banding assessment. It clearly explained that the occupational therapist did not recommend the need for a 2-bedroom property and the local authority maintained that the resident should be offered a 1-bedroom property. It said it must abide by the housing needs assessment made by the local council, and therefore it was unable to influence the decision. This was appropriate and in line with its empty home and allocation policy, which says that it works in partnership with local authorities and the local county council to manage applications for housing.
  14. The landlord went on to explain that it found no evidence that it had allowed the resident to underoccupy the property when she moved in. It said that the housing application listed the residents daughter as an additional occupant. The resident said that she had advised the landlord that her daughter would be staying over occasionally. This Service does not dispute that a verbal discussion took place, however we can only rely on the documentary evidence provided. The tenancy agreement and application list the resident’s daughter as a member of the household. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord was not at fault for the underoccupation of the property.
  15. In summary, the landlord has evidenced that it generally followed its empty home and allocation policy and communicated what it could do to assist the resident, including assistance with any appeal she wished to make. As outlined in the policy, it is not responsible for the banding or bedroom allocation, and it advised the resident of this early on. It visited the resident to assist her in making an application to the local authority, and suggested she register for its homeswapper scheme. These actions meant that the onus was not place solely on the resident to find a solution to her housing situation.
  16. In addition, the landlord made further referrals when the resident said the property was not suitable for her disability. It also evidenced that the resident’s daughter was listed as a household member in the application and tenancy agreement. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from a neighbour

  1. This Service acknowledges that this has been a difficult situation for the resident and recognises that the ASB reported to the landlord has caused her distress. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. For clarity, this investigation is not concerned with establishing whether the reported behaviour took place.
  2. While the Ombudsman is unable to evaluate impact on health, we will take any concerns raised about this into account when considering the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman recognises that some residents’ circumstances mean that they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy says that:
    1. It will acknowledge reports of ASB within 1 day of receipt.
    2. It profiles ASB into 3 categories of seriousness:
      1. Category A – serious criminal behaviour such as violence and threats to kill.
      2. Category B – serious ASB such as verbal abuse and intimidation, or frequent serious disturbance.
      3. Category C – nuisance disputes such as noise nuisance and pet/animal nuisance.
    3. The ASB policy does not categorise domestic abuse as ASB.
    4. It expects any allegations to be made at the time of the incident occurring, and it may refuse to accept an allegation if it has not been reported within 72 hours of the date of the incident.
    5. For all high risk cases, additional security measures will be considered.
  4. The resident first reported ASB in relation to dog barking on 9 May 2022. The case notes evidence that the landlord completed a risk assessment the same day, categorising the case as category C. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy. Furthermore, the landlord demonstrated that it followed government guidance under the ASB, Crime & Policing Act 2014 on “putting victims first”. This helps agencies identify and support high risk victims by providing tools to deal with antisocial individuals. In accordance with this guidance, it is best practice to complete a risk assessment to assess a resident’s vulnerability and the risk of harm at the earliest opportunity following a report of ASB.
  5. An action plan was also completed, which included weekly contact with the resident and an agreement for her to complete a diary of events. This was done promptly and implemented at the early stages of the resident’s reports, which was appropriate.
  6. Following the initial report, the landlord contacted the resident on 17 and 25 May and 1 and 9 June 2022. This was appropriate and demonstrated its commitment to weekly contact with the resident as per the action plan. During this contact, the landlord again encouraged the resident to complete the diary sheets, explaining that they were needed in order for it to take any action. It said that it would close the case if the diary was not received within 14 days. On 9 June 2022, the resident requested the diary to be sent to her via post. The landlord did so and explained that it would extend the timeframe of the case, however the diary should be returned within 20 days. It was appropriate for the landlord to display flexibility around the timeframe for return of the diary, although it could possibly have done more to understand the resident’s reasons for not immediately completing the diary and explore any barriers/solutions.
  7. In relation to another ASB matter, the resident contacted the landlord on 6 June 2022 reporting that the neighbour had broken the dividing fence by trying to jump over it. She said was afraid of them and therefore did not engage with them regarding any repair. The landlord offered to log the report as ASB, however the case notes said that the resident refused. The notes go on to say that the landlord would help the resident and that she should call the police if she felt unsafe. The landlord acted appropriately and in line with its ASB policy by suggesting opening an ASB case in relation to the damaged fence and by offering to support the resident when she refused. Furthermore, it provided appropriate advice by suggesting the resident called the police if she felt unsafe.
  8. The case notes show that the resident took heed of the landlord’s advice and reported the incident to the police. She contacted the landlord on 13 June 2022 and provided a crime reference number. The case notes said that the resident did not want the landlord to “proceed with anything ASB related. On 29 June 2022, the landlord contacted the resident advising it was closing the case due to a lack of evidence. The landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances by closing the case, although it could potentially have clarified that it was doing so due to the resident’s preference for no action (as evidence would have been available via the crime report). By informing the resident of this early on, it effectively managed the resident’s expectations, having already explained what she needed to provide to assist the investigation.
  9. On 26 July 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident in relation to its tenancy sustainment support service. Following this, a visit was made to the resident on 11 August 2022. The case notes say that referrals were made for the resident to external support agencies including social services. During this visit she reported that she could hear domestic abuse at the neighbour’s property. She said that she was scared of the neighbour, and they were very aggressive. The case notes for 19 August 2022 said the landlord would visit the neighbour in relation to the domestic abuse report. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy, which says that domestic abuse will not be dealt with under its ASB policy. There were no further notes on the resident’s case in relation to the visit. This was reasonable given the sensitive nature of the report.
  10. On 5 September 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that the dividing fence was too low and had been damaged by the neighbour 2 months prior. The police contacted the landlord on 28 September 2022 saying that it was taking no further action in relation to the broken fence incident. However, the police recommended that the landlord implement security measures for the resident, which included increasing the fence height. There is no evidence to suggest that the recommendation of increasing the fence height was actioned until 6 March 2023, which was 5 months later. This was an unreasonable delay in actioning the security measures, especially as the resident had explained that she was “very scared” of the neighbour. The case notes for 6 March 2023 say that the landlord could not access the property in order to carry out the works to increase the fence height. This was confirmed by the resident who advised she had forgotten to unlock the gate for access.
  11. On 11 April and 30 May 2023, the resident reported that she could hear domestic abuse from the neighbour’s property. She told the landlord that she was concerned that the neighbour would find out she had reported it. The case notes said that the landlord spoke with the “tenant”. However, it is unclear from the case notes if this was in reference to the resident or the neighbour. It then closed the case. Although the need to be sensitive is recognised when recording this type of information, is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. Without this, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. In this instance, the outcome of the resident’s report cannot be confirmed.
  12. The resident then reported verbal harassment from the neighbour on 13 June 2023. She said that the previous year, the neighbour had jumped the fence and broken it. A risk assessment was carried out by the landlord on 14 June 2023 with a risk rating of medium risk, and an action plan was also completed. The associated case note said that the resident was being supported by the mental health team. The landlord followed its ASB policy by carrying out a risk assessment of the case and completing an action plan. This was appropriate.
  13. The resident also said that she wanted the fence height increased for security reasons. The repair log shows that this was completed on 18 July 2023. While it was appropriate for the landlord to agree to increase the fence height, it was not appropriate that following the failed access of 6 March 2023 and the further request from the resident on 13 June 2023, it took 134 days to do so. The landlord had been made aware of the resident’s concerns for security several times and had received a recommendation from the police to increase the fence height on 28 September 2022. We acknowledge that the landlord made a previous attempt to carry out the works, but it was not sufficiently proactive in progressing the matter, which was unfair to the resident.
  14. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 27 June 2023 and provided additional information on 3 July 2023. She said that nothing had been done in relation to the neighbour and the dog fouling in the neighbour’s garden. The landlord responded on 18 July 2023 outlining the action it took, including that it had asked the resident to complete a diary of events. It said that it would continue to investigate any issues she raised and take appropriate action. This was appropriate, as the landlord has evidenced that it twice asked the resident to complete a diary of events, and these were not returned. It also reassured the resident that it would continue to investigate any further reports she made. Offering reassurance was good practice in the circumstances.
  15. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 27 July 2023. She said that the neighbour was harassing her and that her mental health had been affected to the point it was “taking over her whole life”. She noted she had not been visited by the landlord, despite it saying it would visit. The resident made a further report on 14 September 2023 in relation to the barking dog, dog fouling and the neighbour making “nasty comments”. The landlord has evidenced it took the following action:
    1. On 22 September 2023 it carried out a risk assessment and completed an action plan to include weekly contact. Weekly contact was evidenced in the case notes until 23 October 2023.
    2. It also offered to visit the resident, which formed part of the action plan.
    3. On 27 September 2023 it contacted the neighbour in relation to the resident’s reports. It also encouraged the resident to use a noise app.
  16. On 27 September 2023, the resident sent the landlord photos of the dog fouling in the neighbour’s garden. She said that the clearing up of the mess had “stopped again” and that the dogs had been barking. The landlord responded the same day, saying that from the photos “there was no evidence of harm being caused” to the resident or surrounding properties and it was therefore unable to take any action on the reports which “do not constitute ASB”. It said that in relation to the barking dogs, the noise may be considered ASB, and it would investigate this. It asked the resident to record the type of noise, frequency, and time of day, and to download the noise app. It said that this would aid it in investigating the noise related reports. This was appropriate and resolution focused.
  17. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 24 February 2024. It did not make reference to the resident’s ASB. This was not appropriate, as in her escalation request, she said that part of the complaint was in relation to the neighbour harassing her.
  18. In the main, the landlord followed its ASB policy and the recommendations in government guidance by asking the resident to complete a diary of events and carrying out risk assessments and action plans early on. It also evidenced that these were reviewed and updated, with weekly contact being made with the resident at various points throughout the investigations and support referrals made.
  19. However, there was a delay of 5 months in actioning any security measures despite the resident’s requests and recommendation from the police. The resident had advised the landlord that she was scared of the neighbour, especially after the broken fence incident. There was also an additional delay of 134 days of completing the security measure of increasing the fence height following the failed access attempt of 6 March 2023.
  20. Therefore, due to this delay, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. As a result, £100 compensation has been awarded to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy based on where distress was evident as a result of “service failures, delays and repeat requests”.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it is guided by the Ombudsman and recognises the difference between a “service request” and a “complaint”. It confirms that a complaint will be raised if a resident raises dissatisfaction with the response to their service request. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process, responding to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident requested to raise a stage 1 complaint on 27 June 2023 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day. It further discussed the complaint with the resident on 3 July 2023. This was an appropriate step to ensure it had a good understanding of the complaint.
  3. The landlord then sent its stage 1 response on 18 July 2023. This was 15 working days later, which was not appropriate as the landlord failed to adhere to its policy timescale. While the delay of 5 working days was not excessive, this likely caused the resident some uncertainty, and it would have been good practice for the landlord to have informed her in advance of the delay and its anticipated response date.
  4. On 27 July 2023, the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said that she was “not happy with the response”. There is no evidence to suggest the complaint was escalated at this point, which was unsatisfactory. An internal email of 17 October 2023 said that the resident had made a complaint which was not escalated as she had requested. Furthermore, case notes for 23 October 2023 said that the resident was extremely upset as she felt she was not being listened to. Despite this, the landlord again failed to follow its complaint policy by escalating the complaint. This was not appropriate and evidently distressing for the resident.
  5. The evidence shows that the resident chased a response to her stage 2 complaint 8 times between November 2023 and February 2024. It was unacceptable that the landlord failed to progress escalation of the complaint (or otherwise address the request), which in turn significantly delayed a resolution for the resident.
  6. On 13 February 2024, nearly 7 months after the resident’s escalation request, the landlord acknowledged the request. It provided a good level of detail about the complaint and clearly explained the process, including who would be reviewing the complaint. This was helpful.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 24 February 2024. It sincerely apologised for its failure to recognise the stage 2 request and said that it had tried to make amends by treating the request with some urgency. It acknowledged it had let the resident down and offered her £50 compensation. It was appropriate for the landlord to show an understanding of the impact of its delay on the resident, but its reference to treating the request with urgency was confusing, as it responded 8 working days after it acknowledged the escalation.
  8. In summary, both complaint responses were delayed, which was unfair to the resident. The landlord failed to recognise the need to raise a stage 2 complaint, taking 7 months to do so. It has been evidenced that the resident expended a significant amount of time and trouble chasing the response, which was clearly distressing and frustrating for her. Although the landlord accepted these failings and offered the resident £50 compensation, in the Ombudsman’s opinion this did not go far enough to put things right.
  9. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint. As a result, £350 compensation has been awarded. This is made up of £50 per month for 7 months. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for situations where there has been a high impact on a resident, caused by repeated failures over a prolonged period and significant deviation from its policies.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from a neighbour.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination (allowing for the Christmas period), the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £450, made up of:
      1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her in relation to its response to her reports of ASB.
      2. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the complaint handling delay.
    3. Arrange for relevant frontline staff involved in complaint handing to complete this Service’s free online dispute resolution training for landlords, if this has not been done recently.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord assesses its internal recording procedures against the recommendations of this Service’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). This should include the completion of this Service’s free online training in relation to KIM for landlords and relevant staff if this has not been done recently.