Midland Heart Limited (202323972)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323972

Midland Heart Limited

28 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

1. The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance from the upstairs’ flat.
   2. Reports of leaks into the property.
   3. The resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct.
   4. The related complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat within a house. The tenancy started on 23 October 2006.
3. The resident has physical and mental health conditions which the landlord has recorded on its system.
4. The resident’s adult daughter resides at the property with the resident and is the resident’s carer and nominated representative (the representative). She has a learning disorder (dyslexia). Hereinafter, any reference to the ‘resident’ may include the representative.
5. The landlord is a housing association. The upstairs’ flat is occupied by the landlord’s tenant(s).
6. Between October 2022 to May 2023, the resident made dozens of noise nuisance and ASB reports about the neighbours of the upstairs’ flat (the neighbour). This involved:
   1. Excessive banging and noises until 3 am. Also, their child is heard running around until this time.
   2. Doing their own do it yourself (DIY) which she believed was causing leaks into her property.
   3. Shouting, swearing, and arguing.
   4. Strong smell of cannabis.
   5. An altercation on 17 May 2023 involving the upstairs’ neighbours and residents of another neighbouring property.
7. In response to these reports the landlord:
   1. Sent the representative information about how to activate its out of hours mobile patrol service (patrol service) whereby a team would attend within 30 minutes of an ASB report.
   2. Carried out risk assessments on 12 October 2022 and 14 April 2023.
   3. Visited the resident and neighbour (28 April 2023 and 17 May 2023) to carry out interviews.
   4. Sent the neighbour an advisory letter regarding noise nuisance on 14 November 2022, and sent tenancy warning letters on 19 December 2022, and on 28 April 2023.
   5. Agreed action plans with the resident and neighbour.
   6. Contacted the Police regarding the resident’s report of cannabis use by the neighbour.
   7. Installed noise monitoring equipment on 17 May 2023.
   8. Offered to help soundproof and carpet the neighbour’s flat.
8. During this timeframe the resident sent the landlord more than 100 noise recordings to support her reports.
9. On 7 June 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint regarding noise nuisance and ASB from her neighbour. She stated:
   1. She was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the reports. There had been a lack of empathy from the landlord and no joint working by the previous and current tenancy services officer (TSO) who failed to “fact find”. There was limited communication from the previous TSO and a lack of updates. Assurances provided that warning letters had been sent had not improved the issues.
   2. The current TSO said she had not listened to all the noise recordings.
   3. The representative had asked the TSO on 16 April 2023, and again on 2 May 2023 not to contact her mother due to causing her upset, not remaining impartial and being confrontational at times. She was told her request would be “escalated” however she had not heard back from the landlord about this.
   4. She had copied the landlord’s management into emails however they had not replied.
   5. The landlord was aware of the cannabis smell as this was present when it had attended however nothing had been done about it.
   6. The landlord’s team leader had shown more compassion and enquired if the resident would like to move to an alternative property. However, she was unhappy that the landlord had then declined the request to take responsibility for packing the resident’s belongings and for redecorating and carpeting the new property as well as fitting an alarm and closed-circuit television (CCTV) due to her health conditions.
   7. She was unhappy about the landlord’s handling of leaks from the upstairs flat. She said another 2 floods had occurred on 1 May and 30 May 2023.
   8. The landlord had not acted in line with its ASB policy, and the situation was impacting the resident’s health.
10. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same date and provided a further acknowledgement on 15 June 2023 when it told the resident it would provide a response by 22 June 2023.
11. On 27 June 2023 the resident emailed the landlord again regarding the poor service provided including from its TSO. Later on the same date, the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. This stated:
    1. Regarding noise nuisance, monitoring equipment was installed in her property on 17 April 2023. It said of the 8 reports received since then, noise had been found to be coming from the neighbour on 2 of those occasions. It said it was actively working with them to help reduce the noise and had arranged for sound proofing to be installed in the flooring of the flat above. Regarding her request for someone else to listen to noise reports, this was not possible as the TSO was aware of all issues.
    2. In relation to staff conduct, it wanted to assure her that it had addressed her concerns that the TSO lacked empathy. It said it could find no evidence that the TSO was not impartial. The landlord also said the TSO apologised when she first took on her case regarding the lack of updates from the previous TSO.
    3. It acknowledged the resident had previously experienced leaks within the property that were resolved in October 2022. The landlord stated that it was sorry that the leak had returned on 1 and 30 May 2023. To ensure that this issue was resolved, it had arranged a surveyor inspection for 5 July 2023 to investigate and identify the root cause of the leak. Once it had completed this repair it would update her further.
12. The resident emailed the landlord on 6 July 2023 asking about a face-to-face meeting. She said this was mentioned during a call on 29 June 2023 however she had not heard anything from the landlord since.
13. On 7 July 2023, the landlord acknowledged that the resident believed it had not addressed her concerns raised about the service from its TSO, and it told the resident it had logged a stage 2 complaint.
14. On 11 July 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint once they had met to discuss the “true impact” caused by the issues experienced. The resident contacted the landlord again on 25 July 2023 to chase it for a response to her 11 July 2023 email.
15. On 1 August 2023, the landlord called the resident to arrange a meeting at the landlord’s offices regarding her complaint. This was arranged for 8 August 2023 however it is unclear from the evidence if this meeting took place on this date.
16. Later in August 2023 a new TSO was allocated to the resident’s case.
17. On 30 October 2023, the landlord re-escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2,and on 24 November 2023 it provided a stage 2 final complaint response. Within its response the landlord said:
    1. It appreciated the impact of ongoing noise on her wellbeing, but it could assure her it had been doing everything possible to try and contain the level of noise from her neighbour. It said it was a complicated case and explained that it must consider the neighbour’s personal circumstances also. It acknowledged however that the resident had provided evidence of an adult shouting at unsociable hours. The landlord stated it did not believe noise was malicious and therefore that legal action was not appropriate. It said however that its lettings team had identified a more suitable property for the family to move into and although this was in its early stages, once the family were relocated, it would re–let the property sensitively to avoid any foreseeable issues reoccurring with the new neighbours.
    2. In relation to the lack of confidence in the TSO, it believed she acted in line with its processes and communications from her were “within expectations”. It said the TSO created action plans; however, it acknowledged it “struggled” with flow of information as it had received 250 noise recordings. It said the TSO had now left the organisation and that the resident had been happier with its services and communications through the latest TSO.

3. Regarding the leak from the upstairs’ flat, this was due to a leak from the bath and had been resolved on 10 October 2022. It stated there should be no further issues.

18. The landlord said it was sorry that the resident felt it had not been as responsive to her needs as she would have wished but it did not see any service failure regarding the way in which it had dealt with the complaints.

Events after the landlord’s final response

19. In December 2023, the neighbour viewed and accepted an alternative property offered by the landlord through its internal process which the neighbour moved in January 2024.

Assessment and findings

The scope of this investigation.

20. A complaint about previous leaks into the property that exhausted the landlord’s complaints process on 2 February 2023 was considered by the Service under case reference 202234249. Therefore, the focus of this investigation when considering reports of the leaks, will be the timeframe from 1 May 2023 when the resident reported a further leak into the property.
21. In her communications to the landlord and to this Service, the resident said the issues being experienced had impacted the resident’s mental and physical health. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate if there was a causal link between reports of worsening health issues experienced by the resident due to the actions of the landlord. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of the complaint. As this claim is more appropriately dealt with by a court or other procedure, this element will not be investigated. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Reports of ASB and noise nuisance from the upstairs’ flat

22. ASB reported by the resident concerned noise nuisance from the upstairs’ flat including excessive banging, tapping, and running/stomping footsteps often during the night. There were also reports of shouting, swearing, and arguing during unsociable hours and a strong smell of cannabis coming from the upstairs’ flat.
23. The resident is a vulnerable adult with multiple physical and mental health conditions. The landlord was aware of her vulnerabilities and was told that the ASB, (in particular the noise nuisance) was causing her significant distress and affecting her sleep. The landlord’s ASB policy says when a customer reports ASB, it will listen and take the report seriously, ask questions in order to gather information about the problem that will enable it to decide on the most appropriate course of action. It also states an initial risk assessment will be undertaken to determine its priority.
24. Following the resident’s initial reports of noise received in late October 2022, the landlord discussed the complaint with the resident and carried out an initial risk-assessment which determined the case as low priority. While the landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy by interviewing the resident and completing a risk assessment, the landlord’s records do not show how it reached this ‘low’ outcome in the risk assessment carried out. It is reasonable to expect landlords to keep complete records. In the resident’s case we would expect the landlord to demonstrate it appropriately took into account her vulnerabilities when assessing the risk at this stage however due to the lack of information, this is unclear. This issue is indicative of a knowledge and management failing by the landlord.
25. The landlord asked the resident to send recordings of any further noise encountered. This is in line with its policy which says its investigation will involve evidence gathering by residents in order ensure appropriate action is taken. It also provided her with details about how to contact and activate the patrol service for when ASB or noise nuisance occurred. This is a third-party service who will attend within 30 minutes of receiving any ASB report to investigate the complaint. This was appropriate. The landlord records show it listened to initial recordings received by the resident noting they were “clear”, following which it wrote to the neighbour on 14 November 2022 informing her of the noise complaints received. This letter reminded the neighbour of the tenancy condition not to cause disturbance to neighbours. The landlord also informed the neighbour that it intended to visit her at home on 30 November 2022 to discuss these reports. These actions were in line with its ASB policy which lists ‘interviews with subjects’, ‘advisory letters’ and ‘formal warnings’ as early intervention actions.
26. The neighbour informed the landlord she was unable to make the 30 November 2022 meeting. While the landlord made some effort to reschedule the meeting, it took the landlord around 6 weeks to re-arrange the visit for 2 February 2023. This visit was also cancelled however no explanation is provided for this in the landlord’s notes. It was not until after a new TSO was allocated to the resident’s case in March 2023 that a home visit eventually took place on 28 April 2022.
27. Apart from sending the neighbour a tenancy warning letter on 19 December 2022, between December 2022 and March 2023, there is no evidence of the landlord taking any further steps to address the issues being complained about. It is noted the resident had submitted a high number of recordings via the noise app during this timeframe and the landlord had also received communications from the representative asking that it take action to resolve the issues. Therefore, this lack of progress, delay with interviewing the neighbour and failure to agree any action plan or provide the resident with appropriate updates of its investigation during this time, is evidence of the landlord failing to follow its policy and not acting reasonably.
28. Its records suggest the original TSO had left the landlord’s organisation during this period. However, bearing in mind the resident’s vulnerabilities, we would expect the landlord to have prioritised the resident’s case. Its failure to act on her reports during this timeframe demonstrates that it was not taking her complaints sufficiently seriously. In her initial contact with the resident, the new TSO apologised for the case having been “left” for some time. This was reasonable however it is noted that although in its stage 1 response, the landlord referred to the apology from its TSO for a lack of updates provided prior to this, it failed to acknowledge this represented a failing on its part or offer any redress for it. This indicates an unwillingness by the landlord to take responsibility for failings or to learn lessons to prevent the same issue reoccurring.
29. It is noted however that during April 2023, the landlord completed a further risk assessment and an action plan, visited the neighbour, and sent her another warning letter. It is evident that through its investigations, the landlord recognised at this stage that noise nuisance at unsociable hours was occurring on a regular basis although considered it was not deliberate.
30. This Service recognises that the situation with ongoing noise nuisance caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience. However, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine if ASB has occurred. It is for the Ombudsman to determine whether, in response to such reports, the landlord responded in accordance with its relevant policies and if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
31. The landlord’s records seen by this Service indicate that through its communications with the neighbour, it identified that the cause of some of the noise nuisance was associated to their personal circumstances. Regardless of whether the landlord believed the noise was being caused “deliberately” or due to the family’s circumstances, it still had a duty to take steps to try to ensure noise nuisance was kept to a minimum and did not occur during antisocial hours so as not to impact the resident and disrupt her right to quiet enjoyment of the property. However, given the vulnerabilities in the neighbour’s household, this Service recognises that it had to balance any action taken with its obligation to support the neighbour to sustain their tenancy. This is in accordance with its ASB policy which also states that it will take a reasonable and proportionate approach when using legal and non-legal interventions.
32. Based on the landlord’s actions from around April 2023, it is clear that on several occasions, the landlord checked with both the resident and the neighbour that they had access to additional support by third parties. Furthermore, to support the resident when she informed it of difficulties experienced with previously installed noise monitoring equipment due to her arthritis, the landlord offered alternative methods including submitting noise recordings via WhatsApp. These actions were appropriate.
33. It also offered both parties a permanent move to alternative accommodation to resolve the situation. Although in her formal complaint the representative raised a concern about the landlord declining her request for it to pack the resident’s belongings and install an alarm and CCTV to any new property, in its response the landlord explained that as it did not have resources, it was unable to meet her request. Bearing in mind the landlord has finite resources, on balance its response was reasonable. However, good practice would be for the landlord to have signposted the resident to charities or support agencies that may have been able to assist with this specific request therefore, on balance, it could have done more here.
34. The landlord did however work with the neighbour to identify an alternative property. In its final response it informed the resident of this and provided an assurance that once the neighbour was relocated, it would ensure the property was re-let sensitively to avoid the same issues reoccurring. The landlord’s approach here was reasonable as by supporting the neighbours to find a more suitable property, this would provide a permanent solution to the noise nuisance. Evidence seen by this service shows that the re-let was agreed within a month of the final response and the neighbour had moved around 4 weeks later. This indicates that the landlord followed through with what it had told the resident in its final response.
35. The landlord has also demonstrated that it took steps to reduce noise transference in the interim for example it installed sound-proof tiles at the neighbour’s property. It also ensured its patrol service remained in place for the resident once this was activated on 17 April 2023. On the occasions this team found there had been noise nuisance, the landlord challenged the neighbour about their behaviour and got them to agree to reduce the noise levels. This was included in action plans with the neighbour which it renewed on at least 2 occasions. Its records show the landlord in response to the resident’s concern raised about items fly tipped in the communal garden, inspected these areas, and asked the neighbour to remove items and toys left in the communal garden. This was reasonable and its internal notes indicate the neighbour did then act on its request.
36. However, in its final response, the landlord acknowledged that due to the volume of recordings submitted by the resident which it said was around 300, it “struggled” to manage the flow of information. This indicates it did not listen to all the recordings provided by the resident meaning it would not have had a full appreciation or understanding of the extent of the issues being experienced. In its communication to the resident dated 21 November 2023 it confirmed it had at that point listened to all the recordings. There is no evidence of the landlord acknowledging or explaining this situation to the resident at the time or in its stage 1 response despite the resident having raised a concern about this. This was inappropriate.
37. Regarding the reports of cannabis smells from the neighbour’s flat, this Service acknowledges that this issue caused the resident significant distress as she said the smell impacted her health. However, in response to her reports, the landlord directly raised this issue with the neighbour, checked for any signs of cannabis usage at the property and also contacted the Police in regards to its investigation into the resident’s reports of the same. These actions were appropriate. Checks were carried out during visits to the neighbour’s property by both the landlord and its patrol service however its records indicate no evidence was found to support this. The Police confirmed to the landlord that while it had received 2 reports of the neighbour smoking cannabis, it would not take any further action due to a lack of evidence. The landlord’s records show that when raised with the neighbour, this was denied. Therefore, this Service is satisfied that the landlord’s response to this issue was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.
38. In summary, during the timeframe considered which spanned more than a year, the landlord tried various tools and non-legal interventions to resolve the noise nuisance before arranging for the neighbour and her family to move to an alternative property to permanently address the issue. Bearing in mind the circumstances of this case, this Service accepts the landlord’s position given in its final response that legal action, in relation to the issues being reported was not appropriate here. However, while the evidence shows that at times it worked hard to address the issues being reported and remained in regular communication with the resident, for around 5 months from October 2022 to March 2023, it did not do enough to investigate the resident’s reports or tackle the problems being complained about. During this timeframe the landlord failed to respond to reports or provide sufficient updates to the resident. This is evidence of the landlord not following its ASB policy and of it failing to take into account the resident’s vulnerabilities. This is indicative of maladministration by the landlord which it failed to properly recognise or offer redress for during the complaints process.

Handling of reports of leaks into the property

39. The landlord’s records indicate it attended on the same day when the resident reported leaks from the upstairs flat on 1 May and 30 May 2023 (coming through the kitchen ceiling). It found the source of the leak to be from the neighbour’s bathroom. The landlord acted in accordance with its repair policy which states the landlord will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. However, during the first visit on 1 May 2023, apart from checking the electrics which were found not to be affected, its records indicate no work was undertaken on this visit but show the bath overflow pipe and bath panel were subsequently renewed after the second leak was reported on 31 May 2023.
40. In her formal complaint, the resident said the neighbour was told not to use the bath when the landlord visited on 1 May 2023 (until works were completed) but then tried to do some of the work themselves which she suggested led to the second leak on 31 May 2023. Based on the available evidence, this Service is unable to confirm the resident’s version of events. However, given there was a history of similar leaks reported which the landlord previously believed it had fully addressed, we would expect the landlord in this circumstance to prioritise any repair required to prevent any further reoccurrence of leak. The landlord has not explained its failure to carry out appropriate repairs for more than 4 weeks until after there was a further leak on 31 May 2023. On balance, this constitutes an unreasonable delay by the landlord which led to the further leak.
41. In its stage 1 response the landlord told the resident it had arranged for a surveyor to inspect the upstairs flat on 5 July 2023 to identify the root cause and said it would then update her further. Although this visit is not included in the landlord’s repair records, it is clear from the landlord’s contact notes that its surveyor did inspect the flat with its TSO, however it appears this did not take place until August 2023 (the exact date is unclear from its records). The TSO subsequently told the resident that the surveyor identified further issues including that the overflow was not installed properly and that a leak had been caused by an issue with plastic being left on the bath when it had been sealed. Its notes indicate the TSO assured the resident at this time that the issues had been fully rectified.
42. Therefore, the delay in fully addressing the leak reported on 1 May 2023 led to a further leak nearly 5 weeks later. While the landlord carried out a number of repairs over the next 3 months to ensure all the issues within the bathroom of the upstairs’ flat were fully rectified, there is no evidence of it providing a written update to the resident explaining this or the root cause of the leak either at the time of in its final response. Although its TSO gave a verbal update, a written update would have been more appropriate given the landlord had promised an update in its stage 2 response. In its stage 2 final response, the landlord also failed to acknowledge any failings in relation to its handling of the leak or offer any redress to put right its handling of these further leaks. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the landlord checking with the resident if any internal damage had been caused as a result of these leaks. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the report of leaks.

Handling of concerns regarding staff conduct.

43. In the formal complaint, the representative raised concerns regarding the conduct of the TSO allocated to her case in March 2023.
44. Regarding her complaint that the TSO had not adhered to a request to communicate with her only, there was a delay by the landlord in implementing the request for communication to be via the representative. It is evident that this was initially requested on 16 April 2023 and reiterated on 2 May 2023. However, it took the landlord until the date of its stage 1 response (27 June 2023) for it to tell the resident that a signed letter of authorisation was required from her before it could properly implement her request and uploaded this to her profile. The landlord did apologise for this delay but in the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for it to offer some redress in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by this.
45. In her formal complaint the representative also said the TSO was confrontational, had not been impartial, and had caused her mother upset. The representative asked that an alternative officer review the evidence she had supplied. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine if there has been misconduct or unprofessionalism by the landlord’s staff. However, we would expect the landlord to demonstrate that it thoroughly investigated these concerns and assessed if it needed to take any action for example staff training.
46. One way of investigating conduct complaints is putting these allegations to the officer against whom the complaint is made to gain their version of what happened before reaching any conclusion or deciding what if any action should be taken. Similarly, a landlord may interview any third parties who witnessed events to consider their understanding of what happened. There is no evidence of the landlord doing this here.
47. While in its stage 1 response the landlord stated it had addressed the resident’s concern about the TSO showing a lack of empathy, again, this Service has not seen any evidence to support this. Furthermore, although the landlord stated it had contacted the TSO to discuss the concerns raised and that it could find no evidence to support her belief that the TSO was not impartial, this Service has not seen any records of such contact with the TSO or evidence to indicate how the landlord satisfied itself that its staff member had acted reasonably and professionally and that the concerns raised were not misconduct.
48. Although the resident told the landlord she was unhappy with its stage 1 response to this concern, other than acknowledge that not all recordings provided around this time had been listened to (considered above), the landlord only said that having reviewed the information it was satisfied her case had been handled within its procedures and communications provided within expected timescales.
49. Therefore, based on the available evidence, the landlord has not demonstrated it responded to this complaint appropriately as there is no evidence it carried out a thorough investigation of the concerns raised, and its explanations provided to the resident in its complaint responses were inadequate.

Complaint handling

50. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will aim to acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and issue a response within 10 working days.
51. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within its published timescale however it did not issue its stage 1 response until 3 working days after the date it told the resident it would provide respond (22 June 2023). However, as this was a short delay, this was a minor failing by the landlord.
52. At stage 2 of its process, the policy says the landlord will aim to provide a response within 20 working days and it will agree any extension to this timescale with the resident.
53. Although the landlord appropriately logged a stage 2 complaint on 7 July 2023 following communications received from the resident on 27 June 2023 and on 6 July 2023, the landlord did not issue a stage 2 response until nearly 4 months later on 24 November 2023. It is clear this was mainly because the resident had asked the landlord to meet in person to discuss the complaint and on 11 July 2023 had requested that her complaint was not escalated to stage 2 until after this meeting had taken place.
54. The landlord agreed to the resident’s request which was appropriate. However, it did not confirm the details of the meeting to the resident until 1 August 2023 after the resident contacted it to chase this on 25 July 2023 indicating a minor delay by the landlord. Although the landlord agreed the date of the meeting to be 8 August 2023, the landlord told us in April 2023 there was a delay by its complaints team in arranging to meet the resident due to staff sickness. It is not clear from the evidence provided if this meeting took place on 8 August 2023 or on a later date.
55. Furthermore, this Service has not seen any records of discussions at this meeting or evidence of the landlord taking steps to re-log the resident’s stage 2 response until 30 October 2023 after further contact from the resident. These issues indicate inadequate complaint handling and knowledge and information management by the landlord and is evidence of service failure while handling the related complaint.

Determination (decision)

56. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the reports of ASB and noise nuisance from the upstairs’ flat.
57. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling reports of leaks.
58. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling reports concerning staff conduct.
59. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling the related complaint.

Orders and recommendations

60. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord within 4 weeks:
    1. Provides the resident/representative with an apology in relation to the failings identified in this review.
    2. Pays the resident compensation of £1,150 made up of:
       1. £450 for the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused while handling the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance.
       2. £450 for the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused while handling of reports of leaks into the property.
       3. £150 for the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused while handling reports concerning staff conduct.
       4. £100 for the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused while handling the related complaint.
    3. Provides the Ombudsman with a timeline for providing staff training on its ASB policy particularly where the complainant has vulnerabilities.
    4. Provides the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders.
    5. While this investigation found knowledge and information management failings, as the landlord has already shown compliance with a recent order (under case reference 202234249) to self asses against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report Knowledge and Information Management, no further order is made in this regard.