London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202310267)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310267

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

18 June 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:
1. Handling of the resident’s request for it to remove service charges from her rent account statement and provide her with an updated rent schedule.
2. Response to the resident’s request to be paid a Thames Water refund in full.
3. Response to the resident’s request for written confirmation of her son’s succession rights.
4. Response to the resident’s request for a repair to the rear garden boundary wall.
5. Response to the resident’s request for a repair to the front garden fence.
6. Response to the resident’s reports of a repair to a toilet flush.
7. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour, including noise nuisance.
8. Response to the resident’s reports of a dangerous dog at the neighbour’s property and her request for an additional barrier to be fitted in the garden.
9. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 2 bedroom ground floor flat in a converted house. The landlord is a housing association. The resident’s rent includes fixed service charges which the landlord provides estimated annual charges for each year. The landlord advised it has no recorded health vulnerabilities for the resident.
On 8 July 2022 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord. She expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling and response to several current and historical matters. She considered the landlord had failed to respond appropriately to her requests.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 11 July 2022 and provided a stage 1 response on 22 July 2022. It summarised its position on each of the resident’s points. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint and made no offer of redress.
The resident escalated her complaint on 25 July 2022. While she said the issues regarding service charges and the right of succession had been “satisfactorily addressed,” it had failed to resolve other matters to her satisfaction.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation request on 28 July 2022. Its response provided the resident with a 2022 to 2023 rent schedule.
Following a telephone call with the resident on 9 August 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 final response on 23 August 2022. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 30 March 2023. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 response and explained that it continued to incorrectly include grounds maintenance service charges.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman notes that there has been a variety of complaints raised by the resident since her tenancy started. These events cover many years and have been referred to within more recent correspondence to the landlord and us. We also note the resident raised additional complaints after we accepted this complaint for investigation on 30 March 2023.
A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint on 8 July 2022, through its internal complaints procedure (ICP). This is to ensure that the landlord took reasonable steps to resolve the complaint within its 2 stage process. Therefore, while we recognise the upset any dissatisfaction would cause, this investigation is based on whether the landlord’s formal complaint responses provided reasonable redress for this complaint. This investigation is focused on the landlord’s responses between 8 July 2022 and 23 August 2022.

Handling of the resident’s request for it to remove service charges from her rent account statement and provide her with an updated rent schedule

On 1 February 2022 the resident requested the landlord remove grounds maintenance service charges from her 2022 to 2023 annual rent statement. She said charges effective from 1 April 2022 did not apply because the landlord did not provide her with this service. The resident explained she had raised the error in 2020 and received refunds for previous years. Given the resident was able to evidence that she did not benefit from the grounds maintenance service, her request was reasonable in the circumstances.
Paragraph 5.1 of the landlord’s service charge policy states a resident’s tenancy agreement, lease, or transfer documents set out what services can be charged for within the relevant estate.
The landlord has been unable to provide a copy of the resident’s signed tenancy agreement. In its absence, the landlord provided a copy of a similar tenancy agreement. While this was a reasonable step to ensure we have the necessary tenancy terms to assess, the document lacks an accurate service charge appendix for the resident’s property. It has therefore affected our ability to thoroughly assess the tenancy terms and the obligations on each party. This demonstrates a record keeping failure.
On 26 March 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident. It confirmed that the resident’s property should not receive grounds maintenance service charges. The landlord apologised for any inconvenience or distress caused. It said it would raise a credit adjustment and refund it to the resident’s rent account. While this demonstrates the landlord acknowledged its error and took steps to put things right, it is unclear why the error reoccurred. Furthermore, it is unclear from the evidence supplied what steps the landlord planned to take to prevent the error happening again.
The resident has said that the landlord’s credit adjustment took a further 4 months to resolve. As such, her rent and service charges increased from 1 April 2022 and led to her falling into rent arrears. There is evidence that the landlord provided an adjustment of £729.50 on 21 July 2022. However, this sum was applied incorrectly and should have been £932.52. While the landlord corrected the errors, the resident had been required to use more time and effort to resolve matters. The delays and communication errors would have caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience.
The resident requested an updated annual rent and service charge statement for 2022 to 2023. While there is evidence the landlord issued the requested statement, it continued to include details of a grounds maintenance service charge. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain in its stage 2 response that it was unable to adjust the letter until next year. It suggested its service charge team send her a letter to confirm her payments for the year. While this was a reasonable attempt to offer a remedy, there is no evidence that this letter was sent.
We note that the landlord’s estimated annual rent and service charge statements state that residents can dispute charges. The letter provides contact details and timescales to do so. While this is a reasonable step, it is unclear why the landlord did not take steps to ensure that its property records were accurate and up to date to prevent the error happening again. It was not reasonable to hand responsibility to the resident to monitor her charges when the landlord had already acknowledged that it should not be applying them.
The landlord removed the charges and made the necessary financial adjustments. This returned the resident to the position she should have been in before the incorrect charges. However, it took her time and effort to ensure the landlord corrected this. Furthermore, there is evidence that the error was repeated again within the landlord’s 2023 to 2024 annual rent and service charge statements. This did not demonstrate any learning by the landlord and further indicates a failure to maintain accurate property records.
Based on the evidence supplied, we find service failure with this complaint point. The landlord acknowledged its failings and attempted to put things right. However, it made further errors with the refund calculation and failed to update its records to prevent the error happening again. Furthermore, it was unable to provide the resident’s tenancy agreement, which demonstrated a record keeping failure.
While the detriment to the resident would have been minimal, an order of £50 compensation has been made to recognise the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience to the resident while trying to get matters resolved. This is in line with the remedies guidance available to us when an apology alone is not considered proportionate redress.

Response to the resident’s request to be paid a Thames Water refund in full

On 2 February 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident. It informed her of a £1,010.78 Thames Water refund due to her. The landlord had calculated the resident had overpaid this sum as part of a historic water charge agreement with Thames Water. The landlord had inherited the agreement when it took over the management of 8,500 properties.
It was therefore reasonable in the circumstances that the landlord had identified the historic calculation error and took steps to put things right. The landlord’s letter advised that the credit would be made to the resident’s rent account and offset any arrears. However, if the refund left the resident with a credit balance, it would send a cheque to the resident by March 2022.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s letter and cheque payment on 23 March 2022. The letter explained it had deducted £206.12 and paid the deducted amount to the resident’s rent account. The landlord said it had retained the equivalent of 2 weeks rent to ensure the resident’s rent account was in advance and therefore in line with the terms of her tenancy. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision and wanted the full sum of £1,010.78 paid directly to her.
The tenancy agreement supplied by the landlord states that resident’s must pay the rent and all other charges every week in advance on a Monday. It states that if it lets residents pay at a different frequency (for example monthly or quarterly), residents must pay on the agreed dates in advance. From the evidence supplied, the resident’s payment pattern was unclear. However, in line with the terms of her tenancy, it was reasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to pay her rent weekly in advance.
It is a residents responsibility to ensure that they are meeting the obligations of their tenancy conditions. This would include payments of rent at the appropriate times expected, as outlined within the tenancy conditions. The landlord’s stage 2 response explained at the time of the refund, the resident’s rent account was only in credit by £21.72. Therefore, her account was not in line with her tenancy conditions and it deducted an amount to ensure this was corrected.
We note the landlord’s stage 2 response on 23 August 2022 informed the resident that she was now £171.44 in arrears. This was more than 1 weeks rent. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord advised it was unable to refund the Thames Water difference as she had not maintained her rent account in line with her tenancy agreement. However, it was reasonable that it offered to refund any remaining credit once the resident’s rent account was paid in advance and in line with the terms of the tenancy.
While we understand the resident’s dissatisfaction for being paid less than the £1,010.78 that she believed she would receive, the landlord’s letters explained any arrears would be offset. Therefore, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be paid a Thames Water refund in full.

Response to the resident’s request for written confirmation of her son’s succession rights

The resident emailed the landlord on or around the 21 March 2022. She asked the landlord to clarify her son’s right to succession. There is evidence the landlord telephoned the resident and explained that “it would abide by the terms of her tenancy.” However, she remained dissatisfied as she had requested the landlord provide confirmation in writing.
It was therefore appropriate that the landlord’s stage 1 response assured the resident that her son “would succeed the tenancy under survivorship in accordance with the agreement of her tenancy.” Within the stage 1 response, the landlord included the relevant clause from the resident’s tenancy agreement. This demonstrated the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the residents complaint point and provided a satisfactory answer in writing.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response demonstrated its efforts to resolve this matter for the resident. However, this had taken approximately 4 months. While we acknowledge that it would have been frustrating that the landlord initially only provided a response verbally, the detriment of this failing would have been minimal. However, the failure to provide the resident with a written response caused more time and effort on her as she tried to progress matters to her satisfaction.
Therefore, we find service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for written confirmation of her son’s succession rights. An order of £50 has been made to put things right and to reflect the resident’s time and trouble.

Response to the resident’s request for a repair to the rear garden boundary wall

Following the resident’s complaint on 8 July 2022, the resident said the rear garden boundary wall also required a repair. There is evidence the landlord previously completed an inspection of the wall in October 2021. It considered the wall safe and no repair work required at that stage. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange another inspection. This demonstrated it responding to the residents safety concerns.
Between 13 July 2022 to 20 July 2022, the landlord corresponded with the resident to arrange a convenient appointment. The landlord records state that it completed an inspection within 12 working days of her complaint on 20 July 2022. It recorded that the wall “was linked to a neighbours wall, was sturdy, and where the wall was situated, it was not unsafe.” The landlord noted that there had been movement from the weight of trees but described the wall as a “sound structure.” It reported no concerns or repair needs.
The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances. It included the resident’s additional repair concerns within its complaint investigation and attended promptly. It found no safety concerns and no immediate repair needs. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expert opinion of its specialist member of staff. Therefore, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a repair to the rear garden boundary wall.

Response to the resident’s request for a repair to the front garden fence

On 4 August 2021 the resident reported the front garden boundary fence was leaning outwards in the direction of passers-by. She reported that this was also affecting her ability to open the front garden gate. It is unclear from the landlord’s records what repair, if any, the landlord completed at this stage. The landlord’s records state that the neighbour had temporarily tied the fence up.
The landlord’s relevant repairs policy states that it is responsible for the repair of boundary fences and gates (fencing and gates which separate the garden from a public area). The policy is silent on the repair response timescales. However, it states that it will aim to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. It was therefore reasonable for the resident to expect the landlord to address her concerns.
The landlord’s repair records show a further job raised due to the front garden fence on 26 October 2021. This job was cancelled. It is unclear from the landlord’s record’s why this job was cancelled and what communication, if any, was shared with the resident at this stage. This was not reasonable and did not demonstrate the landlord communicating effectively.
The resident says the landlord informed her it had scheduled a fence repair on 3 February 2022. However, this appointment was cancelled by the landlord and rearranged for 24 February 2022. The resident states the landlord did not complete any work and informed her that the fence was “upright.” It is unclear from the evidence supplied why the landlord cancelled the initial repair and how it considered the temporary fix by the neighbour to be adequate.
There is no evidence the landlord returned to complete the repair until after the resident’s complaint on 8 July 2022. It had therefore been approximately 11 months at this stage since her request for a repair. While the landlord’s relevant repair policy does not specify a timescale for this type of repair, the wait was unreasonable. Furthermore, there is evidence that the repair remained outstanding until completion in March 2023.
Based on the evidence, we find maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a repair to the front garden fence. The landlord did not demonstrate effective record keeping of the repair request nor demonstrate how it monitor the outstanding need. While the detriment to the resident would have been minimal, the landlord’s delays and limited communication, required avoidable time and effort by the resident to resolve matters. The landlord’s complaint response attempted to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance when the landlord’s failures have adversely affected the resident.

Response to the resident’s reports of a repair to a toilet flush

The resident said that she raised a repair with the landlord on 4 August 2021. She reported an intermittent noise when the toilet was flushed. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response and said the noise could lead to ASB complaints.
There is evidence from the landlord’s repair records that the resident confirmed that the toilet was working. While on the call, it asked her to flush the toilet so it could listen to the reported noise. No noise was heard and the resident confirmed it did not occur on that occasion. The resident confirmed that apart from a noise when flushed, the toilet was working as required. Therefore, this was a reasonable attempt by the landlord. It made efforts to identify the issue, ensured that the resident’s facilities were working correctly, and managed its repair resources appropriately.
The landlord advised the resident to monitor and report if the issue got worse. It also reminded the resident that its repairs policy states that she was responsible for resolving any waste pipe blockages. It would recharge the resident if it were required to clear blockages caused by her or members of the household. This was reasonable in the circumstances and reminded the resident of each parties obligation.
While we note that the resident reported a similar noise concern in June 2022, the repair records again confirm that the toilet was working appropriately. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the resident’s toilet was the cause of any reports of noise nuisance.
Given that the resident confirmed that the toilet was working, it was reasonable that the landlord did not raise a repair. Therefore, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a repair to a toilet flush.

Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour, including noise nuisance

It is acknowledged that any ASB situation can be distressing for a resident. At this point, it may help to explain the Ombudsman’s role. It is not our role to decide whether noise reported by the resident amounts to ASB or determine whether ASB is taking place as alleged. Our role in these types of complaints is to consider the evidence available, consider whether the landlord kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and determine whether the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances of the case.
In response to the resident’s reports that neighbours were the cause of noise, the landlord has offered mediation to the resident on numerous occasions from 2007 to 2021. It installed sound equipment in the resident’s property in 2021 which identified no noise from the neighbours above. It wrote to residents to remind them of being considerate to others. It encouraged the resident to use a noise recording app, which she confirmed her ability to use. The landlord identified no noise issues on the recordings submitted. These were reasonable steps in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to support the resident.
Furthermore, we have been able to identify the landlord completed an overhaul of the properties pipework prior to 2020. This demonstrated the landlord acting on the resident’s concerns about statutory noise nuisance prior to her complaint on 8 July 2022.
On 2 January 2022 the resident reported that her neighbour was causing noise to deliberately harass her. She described tapping noises and noises linked to water pipes. The landlord recorded that both incidents had been reported and investigated previously. There is evidence that the landlord had inspected the property in 2020 and 2021. Its records said inspections had been done with the neighbours co-operation on “numerous occasions” and it had been unable to identify any issues.
However, the landlord recorded that the neighbours property had laminate flooring. It recorded reviewing the tenancy agreement which did not prohibit this type of flooring being installed. It was working to incorporate flooring changes into its terms and conditions of future tenancies. While flooring was not identified as the source of the resident’s alleged noise complaint, the landlord’s actions to review its policy for future tenancies was reasonable.
On 7 April 2022 the local authority wrote to the resident. It informed her that it did not uphold her request for an ASB community trigger. It said:
1. Between 28 September 2021 to 1 February 2022 she had reported noise to her landlord. The local authority said it was satisfied the landlord had visited and investigated her reports. It found no evidence of water hammer in the pipework and no other reports of noise following visits to neighbouring properties.
2. It advised the resident’s reports of drug use were a criminal matter and the resident should report these incidents to the police. However, it noted that the police had attended on 21 March 2022 and found no evidence of any illegal drug use.
On 11 October 2022 the landlord recorded the resident called to report further noise nuisance. The resident reported a tapping noise above her bedroom ceiling in the early hours of the morning. The landlord advised the resident of the importance to keep a record and encouraged her to use the noise recording device. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain that it was unable to take any enforcement action without evidence.
The landlord’s records show that its ASB officer attempted to arrange a joint visit to the property with a tenancy management colleague. It recorded its desire to identify where the tapping noise was coming from and assess the risk. The resident declined the landlord’s offer. The landlord’s notes said its action plan was to speak to previous case handlers and discuss the report with the resident’s neighbour. It was reasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to engage with it. This would have given it another opportunity to investigate her concerns. However, without engagement or any evidence, it was reasonable the landlord was unable to take any enforcement action.
On 13 December there is evidence that the neighbour denied the resident’s allegation of ASB and reported the resident to the police. The neighbour considered the resident’s behaviour and ongoing ASB complaints against them to be harassment. The police advised the landlord both parties would be contacted.
On 13 December 2022 the landlord’s ASB team closed the resident’s noise complaint. It recorded that the resident had been unable to provide any evidence that her neighbour was causing noise to intentionally harass her. The landlord recorded the resident had made similar reports against two occupants of the same address during her tenancy. It recorded that a community trigger had not been upheld and concluded its investigations.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Noise Complaints published in October 2022 explains that where noise reports do not meet the statutory threshold, then landlords should adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, distinct from its ASB policy, with clear options for maintaining good neighbour relationships. This should include mediation, which should be offered to residents at the earliest opportunity in an attempt to establish a mutual understanding of each other’s lifestyles.
While it is clear the resident felt she had experienced distress, the landlord’s actions were reasonable. It demonstrated historical engagement with the resident and her neighbours, it offered mediation, supplied sound recording equipment, and upgraded pipework to minimise any building related noises.
Based on the evidence, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour, including noise nuisance.

Response to the resident’s reports of a dangerous dog at the neighbour’s property and the request for an additional barrier to be fitted in the garden

The landlord’s relevant repairs policy, effective from 6 April 2021, clarifies the landlord and resident responsibilities for fence repairs. The policy states that the landlord will only repair where it has a duty to do so. This would include boundary fences and gates (fencing and gates which separate the garden from a public area) but not dividing fences (fences and gates which separate a garden from a neighbour’s garden).
On 20 June 2022 the resident reported that the neighbour’s “vicious” dog had tried to attack her the day before, through a gap in the dividing fence. She requested the landlord install an additional barrier as protection. The landlord explained that the repair responsibility was the resident’s. It advised that any additional barriers or work to the dividing fence would be rechargeable or classed as an improvement. This was reasonable and in line with the resident’s tenancy conditions and the landlord’s repairs policy.
The landlord advised that the incident would need to be reported to its tenancy and ASB teams. The resident said she would call back as she “did not have the time right now.” The landlord’s advice was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated its efforts to provide the resident with support. It is unclear from the evidence whether the resident contacted the landlord’s ASB team directly prior to raising a formal complaint.
Paragraph 4.5 of the landlord’s relevant ASB policy categorises types of ASB that it will record. This includes garden nuisance (including neglect, borders, fences and hedges), pets or animal nuisance, including dog fouling and uncontrolled pets.
Furthermore, the landlord’s relevant ASB policy states a vulnerability risk assessment matrix (RAM) will be completed on all high priority ASB cases (and where relevant on standard priority cases). This is to measure the harm caused to the victims and to guide staff on the actions to take to protect victims from further harm.
Following the resident’s complaint on 8 July 2022 the landlord referred the resident’s concerns to its ASB team. As there had been no direct call from the resident after 20 June 2022, this was a reasonable step for the landlord to take. However, there is no evidence the landlord’s ASB team recorded the incident as pet nuisance. This was not appropriate and not in line with its ASB policy. Furthermore, while the landlord has supplied evidence of it previously completing RAMs and action plans, it has been unable to evidence updating these following the alleged dog incident.
It is understandable that an incident of this nature would cause distress. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident of her repair responsibilities as set out in her tenancy conditions. However, we find service failure with the landlord’s response to this complaint point.
The landlord has failed to demonstrate investigating the alleged incident as pet nuisance. This was not in line with its ASB policy. Furthermore, risk assessments are essential to identify the threat posed to a resident and any support needs they may have. The level of threat and support required can change. There is no evidence that this process was completed or monitored and indicates a need for refresher training.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. It states it will provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022 sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days. A stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. A stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate a complaint. Therefore, the landlord’s policy was appropriate and in line with the Code.
The resident raised her complaint on 8 July 2022. It was therefore reasonable for her to expect an acknowledgement by 13 July 2022 and a stage 1 response by 22 July 2022. The landlord met both these deadlines and provided an acknowledgement on 11 July 2022 and a response on 22 July 2022. This was appropriate and in line with its complaint handling policy and expectations of the Code.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s ICP on 25 July 2022. It was therefore appropriate and in line with the landlord’s complaints handling policy that it acknowledged her request on 28 July 2022.
It was reasonable for the resident to expect a stage 2 final response by 22 August 2022. However, we note the landlord informed the resident that it would provide its response by 23 August 2022. While this date is incorrect to meet its obligations of responding at stage 2 within 20 working days, it would have caused minimal detriment to the resident. Furthermore, there is evidence that the landlord spoke with the resident on 9 August 2022 and provided its response, as promised, by 23 August 2022.
Therefore, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to remove service charges from her rent account statement and provide her with an updated rent schedule.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be paid a Thames Water refund in full.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for written confirmation of her son’s succession rights.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a repair to the rear garden boundary wall.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a repair to the front garden fence.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to response to the resident’s reports of a repair to a toilet flush.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour, including noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s response to response to the resident’s reports of a dangerous dog at the neighbour’s property and the request for an additional barrier to be fitted in the garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay directly to the resident a total of £200. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £50 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to remove service charges from her rent account statement and provide her with an updated rent schedule.
  2. £50 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s response to response to the resident’s request for written confirmation of her son’s succession rights.
  3. £100 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a repair to the front garden fence.
2. The landlord is ordered to ensure that it provides appropriate refresher training to staff responsible for ASB cases. This will ensure understanding of and adherence to the process of opening and closing cases as well as the importance of renewing risk assessments upon receipt of new information.

Recommendations

The landlord is encouraged to write to the resident and remind her of the noise recording devices and application available to her. If it has not already done so, it should consider re offering mediation as a means to remedy the alleged noise concerns.
The landlord is encouraged to review the Housing Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight Report on Knowledge Information Management (KIM). It may wish to use the recommendations in the report to inform its future record keeping practices to aid service delivery.
The landlord is encouraged to review the Housing Ombudsman’s April 2024 Spotlight on Noise complaints – Time to be Heard.