Onward Homes Limited (202126950)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126950

Onward Homes Limited

30 April 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. The tenancy commenced on 21 October 2013. The resident is no longer a tenant of the landlord.
The evidence confirmed the landlord was aware the resident was vulnerable and had dyslexia.

Landlord obligations

The landlord’s ASB policy and the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 defines ASB as:
1. Conduct that has caused or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person.
2. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
3. Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person. This includes noise nuisance, which can be intermittent and must affect the comfort or quality of life of a reasonable person.
The landlord’s ASB policy states:
1. All residents or customers who report an incident of ASB would be risk assessed and the landlord would provide a tailored action plan and keep the resident updated on actions taken.
2. It would encourage and support neighbours to try and resolve specific issues by taking part in its mediation service.
3. It would work with other organisations such as the police or the local authority and provide support to victims of ASB by signposting them to external organisations where appropriate.
4. It would not usually transfer residents or perpetrators as a means of resolving nuisance or ASB, except in exceptional circumstances in line with its letting policy.
5. It offered a range of methods for residents to collect evidence, such as diary sheets, noise equipment and a noise app. If necessary and where proportionate, it would seek the use of professional witnesses or CCTV.
6. Residents should cooperate with the landlord to resolve their complaint of ASB by responding to its calls and/or letters, collecting evidence and try to be available for pre-arranged meetings or home visits. Failure to do so may lead to the case being closed due to lack of contact with the resident.
The landlord is required to have regard to a resident’s disability in line with its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. Where on notice, it must consider when making decisions and providing a service whether its decision making/ actions could place the person at a particular disadvantage due to their vulnerabilities. The landlord was also required to make appropriate reasonable adjustments.
The landlord’s lettings policy states:
1. Where a resident wants to move, it encourages them to join their local housing register and/or seek a mutual exchange.
2. Emergency transfers would only be considered in exceptional circumstances where it is no longer safe for a resident to continue living in their home.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints policy. Its website states complaints at stage 1 should be acknowledged within 5 working days, and it should provide a response within 10 working days. At stage 2, the landlord should provide its final response within 20 working days.

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in its opinion were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
The resident reports historical incidents of ASB from June 2017 where various actions were taken by the landlord and other external organisations relating to harassment, ASB and noise by the resident’s neighbour towards the resident and other tenants in the surrounding properties. The landlord liaised with the local police and provided noise recording equipment. It also sent tenancy warning letters to the neighbour and obtained an injunction which was in force between October 2020 until 28 August 2021.
The evidence seen by this Service shows there was a period where the resident confirmed the ASB was resolved whilst the injunction was in place. The first evidence of an ASB case opened since the injunction ended was on 11 November 2021 relating to dog fouling.
This Service recognises the long-standing history has caused the resident distress. However, this Service is unable to investigate the landlord’s handling of the historical reports of ASB. This is because the landlord’s handling of those reports was not referred to the landlord as a complaint and the majority of incidents occurred over 12 months before the resident made his complaint to the landlord on 17 March 2022.
This investigation will consider the events which occurred after 11 November 2021 when the resident reported an incident of ASB to the landlord and until the resident received his stage 2 response dated 1 November 2022.

Summary of events

On 11 November 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident following its investigation of reported dog fouling. It explained:
1. It reviewed video evidence submitted by the resident which did show evidence of dog fouling. However, it inspected the site and did not find evidence of dog foul left.
2. It sent a letter to all residents reminding them of their responsibilities to pick up their dog foul. It would not take the matter further at that stage.
On 14 and 15 December 2021 the landlord attempted calls to the resident to discuss the recent report of ASB received. It left a voicemail for the resident to contact it back.
Between 17 December and 21 December 2021:
1. The resident emailed the landlord twice, regarding dog fouling and verbal abuse from his neighbour.
2. The landlord emailed the resident to confirm the matter was being investigated by its neighbourhood team. It offered mediation, however, the resident declined the offer.
On 27 January 2022 the resident reported ASB to the landlord following events which occurred on 26 January 2022. He explained he had shopping delivered and his neighbour was verbally abusive towards him.
On 28 January 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident following his report of ASB on 26 January 2022. It stated:
1. It had noted the incident reported where he said his neighbour was verbally abusive about the resident when speaking to a delivery man, who was there to deliver his shopping.
2. It was committed to investigating the reports of ASB. It would review any evidence provided and liaise with the police. It also spoke with the neighbour who denied the allegations.
3. It provided diary sheets and requested the resident continued to report further incidents to the police and itself. It asked for the log numbers of incidents reported to the police and it said would review the video evidence he submitted of the incident on 26 January 2022.
Between 31 January and 1 February 2022:
1. The landlord reviewed Ring doorbell footage of the incident submitted by the resident. It did not see evidence of ASB, the footage showed the neighbour going to a bike outside of the property.
2. It discussed the matter with the police and they advised there was no evidence to substantiate the report. The police said it would conduct a walkabout on the resident’s street on 4 February 2022 and would be able to discuss issues with the resident and landlord then.
On 11 February 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding his report of ASB on 26 January 2022. It explained:
1. It discussed the incident with the police. It arranged for its neighbourhood team and the police to attend the resident’s street for a walkabout on 4 February 2022, where the resident had opportunity to raise his concerns directly to them. They attended the resident’s home but did not gain access.
2. It had investigated the report of dog fouling and no further action was required at that stage.
3. Its IT server did not allow for multi-media files to be received. It asked the resident to contact its call centre or online portal to report incidents where he had video evidence he wanted to submit.
4. It considered the ASB resolved and closed the case. However, it maintained its offer of mediation should the resident want this to be arranged with his neighbour and himself.
On 28 February 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to advise he had reported another incident of harassment from his neighbour to the police. He explained his neighbour shouted at him and called him names as he was receiving a delivery.
Between 8 and 24 March 2022 the landlord telephoned the resident on several occasions and left voicemails to further discuss the incident reported on 28 February 2022 as part of its investigation. There is no evidence the resident returned the landlord’s calls, and the case was closed.
On 17 March 2022 the resident complained to the landlord. He explained:
1. His neighbour’s dog urinated and fouled in his garden, on his bins and his front door mat. He would accidentally walk in dog foul when leaving his property. He had previously asked for privacy hedges to deter the dogs from entering his property.
2. His reports of ASB and dog fouling by a neighbour had not been taken seriously and the landlord had only sent a letter to the neighbour, despite the evidence he had provided such as video footage and photographs of diary sheets he had handwritten.
3. He could not communicate well on the telephone as he has anxiety and depression. The stress of explaining his issues caused him to have outbursts of Tourette’s. He requested the landlord communicated with him by email.
4. He did not answer the door to the police on the walkabout due to them not wearing facemasks.
5. Due to his reporting of his neighbour’s ASB to the landlord, the neighbour had harassed him further. He reported a recent incident where the neighbour attempted to enter his property, in addition to other previous incidents such as name calling and the neighbour shouting abuse through his letter box. However, no further action was taken. This had impacted his mental health and he feared for his safety.
On the same date, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It stated it would respond within 10 working days.
On 28 March 2022:
1. The resident contacted the landlord to discuss the closure of his ASB case. The landlord explained there was a lack of evidence and engagement from the resident.
2. The resident reported a new incident of verbal abuse from his neighbour when he received a delivery.
Between 29 March and 30 March 2022:
1. The resident requested the landlord obtained an injunction against his neighbour and reported they had damaged his Ring doorbell.
2. The resident informed the landlord he reported a new incident to the police where his neighbour had put dog foul in his recycling bin. He also reported the previous incident where he had been called names by his neighbour.
3. The landlord arranged a meeting with the resident at its offices.
4. The resident asked the landlord to evict his neighbour as he had been reporting incidents and dog fouling for several months. The landlord explained it would not consider eviction at that stage.
5. The landlord advised the resident he was not permitted to have a Ring doorbell, noting he had 2, 1 of which was facing directly at his neighbour’s front door and the other in front of his property. It asked him to remove them.
6. The landlord offered to refer the resident to tenancy support services for the ongoing incidents, however the resident declined.
On 29 March 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It stated:
1. It had discussed the resident’s complaint with him. The main points he wanted to be considered were:

i. he wanted a face-to-face meeting to provide evidence and discuss the issues he has raised

ii. resolution of dog fouling issues

iii. resolution of harassment by his neighbours. He noted a neighbour attempted to enter his property without permission.

It agreed to holding a face-to-face meeting with the resident with the relevant members of the neighbourhood team.
The local police and the landlord had reviewed footage, and it did not show the neighbour breaching their tenancy by attempting to enter the resident’s property.
It found no evidence it had acted outside of its policy and procedure.
It explained it could only work with evidence it was presented with and would work in partnership with local organisations such as the police, to resolve issues at the lowest level. It would use methods such as warnings, noise monitoring, closed circuit television (CCTV) and mediation.

On 30 March 2022 the landlord reviewed video evidence submitted by the resident dated between 19 and 30 March 2022. The landlord’s description of the reviewed footage states it saw:
1. The neighbour shouting towards the resident’s property.
2. The neighbour hit the resident’s Ring doorbell with some wood.
3. The neighbour’s partner was seen to have pushed the resident’s bins over and, on several dates, move the bins to a different location.
4. The neighbour rang the resident’s doorbell, after which the neighbour also pushed the resident’s bins over.
5. The neighbour’s partner calling the resident offensive names. The resident also responded with swearing.
On 8 and 26 April 2022 the resident reported he was called the same offensive name from his neighbour on each date.
On 25 April 2022 the landlord attempted to telephone the resident to ask for an update on whether any further incidents had occurred and whether the resident would attend a meeting with the police and neighbourhood team. It left a voicemail asking for a call back. The resident did not make further contact.
On 26 April 2022 the resident’s GP wrote to the landlord explaining the resident’s mental health was impacted by the ASB with his neighbours and supporting an application for the resident to be rehoused to assist with his mental and physical health in future.
On 27 April 2022 the landlord was informed the police had followed up action against the neighbour for damaging the resident’s doorbell.
Between 9 and 26 May 2022:
1. The resident reported his neighbour was drinking outside the front of the property. The resident had also contacted the police.
2. The landlord attempted to contact the resident to discuss the matter further and left a voicemail for a call back.
3. The landlord wrote to the resident confirming a meeting at the local police station on 23 May 2022 to discuss the ongoing issues about his neighbour, with the landlord and local police in attendance.
4. The landlord wrote to the neighbour who did not pick up their dog foul, with a tenancy breach warning letter and invitation to the police station for a meeting with the landlord and local police, scheduled an hour after the resident’s meeting.
5. The resident advised he did not want anything to do with his neighbour and could not attend the scheduled meeting on 23 May 2022. The landlord asked the resident for new availability but there is no evidence the resident responded.
6. The landlord telephoned the resident, however the resident hung up the call. The landlord followed up with an email asking the resident to make contact.
On 25 May 2022 the landlord wrote to the neighbour as they did not attend the meeting at the local police station to discuss allegations or provided his availability for a new date.
On 8 June 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming closure of the ASB case as no further reports or contact had been received from the resident. It noted it had attempted to arrange a meeting between the resident and the police but the resident had not cooperated to provide availability.
On 11 July 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation request. It stated it would provide its stage 2 response by 25 July 2022.
On 14 July 2022:
1. The resident reported his neighbour was revving their motorcycle and causing nuisance.
2. The landlord attempted to contact the resident and arrange a home visit to discuss his complaint and new report of ASB. It left a voicemail explaining the resident needed to collect evidence of the noise using its noise app. It advised it would require 2 weeks of consecutive recordings to assess whether this was evidence of ASB. It also sent a text asking for the resident to make contact and provided further instructions to download and use the noise app. It followed this up with a letter containing the same instructions.
3. The noise disturbance was referred to the local authority’s environmental health department.
On 15 July 2022 the resident was confronted by his neighbour whilst leaving his property. He reported he was “squealed at” and when using a zebra crossing the neighbour called him names again.
On 27 July 2022 the local authority wrote to the resident explaining noise from neighbours was best resolved by discussion with the neighbour responsible. However, to allow it to monitor the noise disturbance and investigate whether it met a statutory nuisance threshold, the resident should complete diary sheets over a 2-week period, which were downloadable from a website link it provided to evidence the noise nuisance.
On 1 August 2022 the resident reported he was called names by his neighbour. However, nothing had been done about his reports previously.
On 2 August 2022 the resident reported that a visitor of the neighbour harassed him and was abusive.
On 8 August 2022 the landlord met with the resident and his support worker:
1. The resident was asked to remove the Ring doorbells as they were in a position which invaded the privacy of his neighbours. It also antagonised his neighbours which was contributing to the disputes. The resident did not agree and confirmed he would not remove the cameras. However, he later explained the camera did not work.
2. The landlord and support worker agreed that the evidence submitted by the resident suggested the resident was also an aggressor of the incidents on occasions.
3. The resident and support worker agreed to mediation with the neighbours.
On 16 August 2022 a referral was made to arrange mediation.
On 25 October 2022 the resident emailed a police officer contact to provide photographs of his handwritten accounts of the ASB events along with corresponding police reference numbers for incidents which took place between 22 August 2021 and 1 August 2022.
On 26 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and provided reasons for his complaint escalation which were:
1. Harassment and bullying from his neighbours were not resolved.
2. Landlord staff were not qualified to manage his reports of ASB and the neighbourhood specialist missed important meetings. The landlord also did not keep accurate records.
3. The ASB had been ongoing since 2015 and remained unresolved.
4. He wanted compensation as he was forced to move home due to the lack of support from the landlord. He requested staff members were dismissed and the landlord provide further training to staff.
On 1 November 2022 the landlord provided its stage 2 response:
1. It apologised for the delay in providing its complaint response. It explained the resident had previously indicated during several conversations he was content with its response to the reports of ASB. It however, had received a request from the Ombudsman to provide a stage 2 response. It wrote to the resident on 23 August 2022 and followed up by telephone to ask for his reasons for the stage 2 escalation. It did not receive a response until 26 October 2022.
2. It did not have enough evidence to pursue an injunction or possession proceedings against the neighbour. There were no independent witnesses to corroborate the resident’s version of events. The video evidence submitted by the resident also showed him to be the aggressor in some disputes and counterclaims were made against him. The resident was offered referrals to tenancy support services and mediation, which were offered on several occasions to address the dispute. It believed it had followed its ASB policy.
3. Whilst the resident complained a staff member did not attend meetings, it could only find evidence of 1 occasion when this occurred on 9 August 2022. However, this was due to other commitments, and it had arranged for another colleague to attend to represent the landlord at the meeting.
4. Whilst there was long-standing ASB with his neighbour, it believed it had acted appropriately in response to reports of ASB. It had investigated reports of dog fouling, however it could not find evidence to support the resident’s claims. However, action had been taken to remove the dogs from the neighbour’s property.
5. It offered £100 compensation for its complaint handling delays.

Events post complaint

On 18 November 2022 the ASB case was closed as the resident did not engage with mediation and had moved out of the property without giving written notice of termination.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman considers its dispute resolution principles. This is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes

b. put things right, and

c. learn from outcomes.

Antisocial behaviour

It is evident that this situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to firstly explain that the Ombudsman’s role is not to decide if the actions reported amount to ASB or that legal tenancy enforcement action should have been taken to remove the neighbour from their property, but rather whether the landlord responded to and managed the resident’s reports appropriately and reasonably.
This Service has not seen evidence of a completed risk assessment by the landlord following the resident’s reports of ASB. This is something the Ombudsman would expect to see in its records and the landlord sets this out in its ASB policy. This is relevant, particularly as the resident was recorded as suffering from vulnerabilities and his GP wrote to the landlord on 26 April 2022, advising of the impact the ASB had on the resident’s physical and mental health. There is no evidence the landlord sought to follow up on this information with the resident and discuss what steps it could take or measures which could be implemented. This was evidence of a service failure.
While the outcome of its risk assessment may not have altered how the landlord handled the case overall, the landlord has not been able to show it had considered whether the resident may have needed any reasonable adjustments. There is little indication in its communication with the resident that it considered how the situation may have been affecting him. Specifically, on 17 March 2022, the resident explained he struggled to communicate with the landlord via telephone and preferred email contact.
There is no evidence the landlord considered its obligations under the Equality Act and sought to make reasonable adjustments for the resident to accommodate his request, and there were several occasions where the landlord telephoned the resident in response to his report of ASB and left a voicemail. This was seen in March 2022 where the resident’s case was closed as he did not make further contact with the landlord following its attempted call back requests. Then, on 25 April 2022 and in May 2022, the resident reported further incidents of ASB, which were responded to by telephoning the resident and leaving a voicemail.
This Service does recognise there was several examples where the landlord did write to the resident in the first instance. However, the inconsistency suggested the landlord should have done more to ensure its system clearly displayed the resident’s contact preferences and adjustments were put in place. This was evidence of a service failure.
Whilst there is no evidence of a risk assessment to identify if the resident required additional support, this Service does recognise the landlord offered the resident a referral to tenancy support services which was declined. The referral would have allowed him the opportunity to receive tailored support and assistance through the life of the case, separate to the landlord’s investigation. This demonstrated good practice by the landlord, and it was unfortunate the resident declined the offer of referral for additional support.
The evidence suggests the landlord was proactive in its response to the reports of ASB. Whilst there were communication issues from both the landlord and the resident when the initial incidents of ASB were raised, which could have been improved, the landlord has evidenced it made several attempts to discuss and resolve the ASB with the resident and the neighbour.
On 28 January 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident with an action plan to submit diary sheets to log incidents following reports of his neighbour using abusive language towards him. It asked the resident to continue to report incidents to itself and the police. It explained it would liaise with the police to discuss the incidents reported. It also said it would review video evidence of the incident the resident had submitted and investigate. On 31 January 2022 it reviewed the Ring doorbell footage but confirmed the evidence did not support the resident’s report of ASB. It also received the police report which confirmed its investigation did not support the resident’s report of ASB.
The landlord was expected to explore fully the impact of the situation between residents in line with its ASB policy. Whilst the advice that criminal elements would be handled by the police was accurate, this did not absolve the landlord of a duty to investigate further. The landlord acted appropriately in conducting its own investigations. It spoke with the neighbour about the reported ASB and dog fouling, sent warning letters and monitored the reports.
The landlord confirmed in its evidence disclosure to this Service that the resident had not submitted diary sheets that it asked him to provide. The resident had provided this Service with photographs of a handwritten account of his experiences with ASB, which he emailed to a police officer on 25 October 2022. The handwritten notes do not contain the level of information which would be expected in the landlord’s diary entry forms it provided to the resident, and do not describe each incident which occurred. The evidence suggests the resident did not engage with the landlord’s request for him to complete diary entries in the required format it had asked for. There is also no evidence to suggest the landlord received the handwritten entries from the resident as it confirmed it had no record of this.
However, once the landlord was aware the resident had not submitted the diary sheets, it did not consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and whether he required reasonable adjustments to assist him in completing the diary sheets or required an alternative way to collate the evidence. There is no evidence the landlord made this consideration and discussed this with the resident. This is evidence of a service failure.
The landlord reviewed video evidence submitted by the resident dated between 19 and 30 March 2022. The landlord described 5 incidents of the neighbour acting in a manner capable of causing nuisance and annoyance, and 1 of the resident described as an aggressor. The evidence suggested the landlord believed the resident to have also been an aggressor as his Ring doorbells were aggravating the neighbour, and its request to remove these had been refused. On 8 August 2022 the resident’s support worker agreed with this view.
In circumstances such as these where there are contributing factors from both parties, this Service would expect the landlord to take a balanced approach to resolve the neighbour dispute. The evidence suggests the landlord felt it was limited to take any escalatory action above sending warning letters about behaviour, due to the actions of both parties. Whilst this was understandably frustrating for the resident, the landlord’s ASB policy required it to offer its residents mediation to resolve their disputes. The landlord offered medication on several occasions in December 2021, February 2022 and March 2022, and this was declined by the resident.
The landlord was also proactive in response to the resident’s requested complaint outcome, when it scheduled a meeting on 23 May 2022 with the landlord and local police in attendance to discuss the ongoing issues, offering the same to the neighbour. However, as the meeting date approached, the resident informed the landlord he could not attend. He also did not respond to the landlord’s request for his availability to reschedule the meeting. The resident’s failure to fully engage with the landlord’s resolution attempts made it difficult for the landlord to take further escalatory action under its ASB policy.
Overall, the evidence suggested the landlord had taken steps to follow up on the reports of ASB in line with its ASB policy. The landlord was largely limited with the actions it could take based on the cooperation of the resident in methods of mediation and additional meetings in its attempts to resolve the ASB. However, the landlord should have risk assessed the resident in line with its ASB policy and considered its obligations under the Equality Act to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate alternative methods of communication with the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB amounted to service failure.

The associated complaint

The resident complained to the landlord on 16 March 2022, and it acknowledged the resident’s complaint on the same date. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 29 March 2022. This was in line with its complaint policy timescales.
The resident informed this Service he escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 9 May 2022. However, there is no record of the resident’s escalation request provided by the landlord or resident on this date. The landlord explained it was unaware of the resident’s stage 2 request until the Ombudsman asked it to provide a stage 2 response in May 2022.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 11 July 2022. However, it provided the resident with its stage 2 response on 1 November 2022. This was a delay of approximately 4 months from when it had notice of the resident’s escalation request. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy timescales or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failing within its stage 2 response and apologised. Whilst it explained it was delayed in providing a response as it sought further information from the resident which had not been responded to, the landlord should still have provided its stage 2 response within 20 working days. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint amounted to maladministration.
The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failings and acted fairly by apologising to the resident. It also offered £100 compensation. However, the landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to the time and trouble incurred by the resident is pursuing his complaint. Neither was the level of the compensation in line with the range of awards for such maladministration set out in the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies. Therefore, a further award of compensation has been made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not complete a risk assessment with the resident following his reports of ASB or consider making reasonable adjustments for methods of contact, collating diary sheet evidence or discussing the concerns reported by his GP.
The landlord did not provide its stage 2 response within the expected timescales and there was a delay of 4 months.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. If it has not already done so, pay the resident the £100 already paid as part of its complaint response dated 1 November 2022
3. Pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the reports of ASB.
4. Pay the resident £150 for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling.
5. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.
6. The money should be paid direct to the resident and not used to offset any arrears that the resident may have.