Trident Housing Association Limited (202208978)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208978

Trident Housing Association Limited

20 December 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s concerns that it had allocated her an unsuitable property.
2. the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (‘ASB’) including noise nuisance from her neighbour and that they were running a business from their property.
3. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident occupies a 2-bedroom flat under an assured tenancy agreement that began on 26 August 2022. Her flat is located underneath her neighbour’s. The resident told the landlord during the complaints procedure that she suffers from anxiety, low mood, and emotional dysregulation. She receives ongoing support from a carer and the community psychiatric nursing team.
On 25 May 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to advise that from the time she moved in her neighbour had been:
1. frequently creating noise nuisance by making loud noises throughout the day and during the night, banging walls, and purposefully stomping on the floors.
2. “illegally” running a catering business from the property.
3. “committing fraud” by applying for local schools for children that did not ordinarily reside in the property.
The landlord responded by opening an ASB case and asking the resident to record noise incidents with diary sheets and a noise monitoring app. It referred the resident’s reports about the catering business to environmental health. It later visited the neighbour who made counter-reports that other neighbours in the block were bullying them. The landlord also carried out an ASB case review and held a professionals meeting. It later went on to install CCTV at the block of flats and speak with other residents to try and gather further evidence.
On 31 August 2023, following contact from the resident, we wrote to the landlord. We informed it that the resident was unhappy with its response to her concerns. We set out the resident’s complaint and asked the landlord to respond through its complaint procedure.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 26 September 2023. It said:
1. it had conducted a detailed investigation, and it had provided the resident with a single point of contact on 2 June 2023.
2. it had been investigating 5 areas of ASB including noise nuisance and the running of a business from a home.
3. it had met with the neighbour previously to discuss the reports.
4. it had conducted a case review meeting on 5 September 2023. This included sharing professional views on the case and reviewing current and future actions, including issuing a breach of tenancy letter.
5. it noted the resident had not downloaded the noise app and did not want to consider further managed move options.
6. it had carried out a vulnerability and risk assessment and communicated with the resident regularly. It had agreed when conducting home visits not to be seen to be visiting the neighbour’s flat.
7. it recognised the impact of the situation on the resident’s mental health. It would ask the police to conduct welfare checks and refer to other supporting agencies with her consent.
8. it was taking the resident’s reports seriously by conducting review meetings of the case and working with external agencies.
9. it did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It had acted on the resident’s concerns and would continue to gather information.
At the resident’s request, we asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 20 February 2024. The landlord said it did not identify an earlier request to do so from the resident. However, it noted it had received 188 emails in this time period from the resident and apologised for any oversight.
On 9 April 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident to explain it was closing the ASB case. This was because it did not have enough evidence to take further action.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 April 2024. It said:
1. it summarised the measures it had taken to investigate and act on the resident’s ASB reports.
2. it concluded it could not find any service failures in the way it had responded to the resident’s ASB concerns and considered the complaint to be closed.
The resident referred her complaint to us for investigation. She said she felt the landlord had lied to her and the Ombudsman about its handling of this case. She was seeking:
1. a single point of contact to discuss her ASB reports and an action plan.
2. an apology and acknowledgment for the landlord’s failures.
3. the landlord to take enforcement action against the neighbour to prevent her from needing to move property. Alternatively, an offer of a managed move based on her vulnerabilities and to ensure she stays close to her support networks.
4. the landlord to consider soundproofing the property in the short term and to monitor the situation following installation to see if it helps to reduce the noise.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

In correspondence to this Service, the resident explained she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision making when it chose the current property it allocated to her. She said she felt it was unsuitable because the landlord was aware at the time of allocation that the property was subject to ASB.
Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.”

While the resident’s concerns are acknowledged, we have seen no evidence that these concerns were brought to the landlord’s attention either before or during the course of the complaint. In line with the Scheme, the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. We have seen no evidence that the resident raised a complaint about the matter. Nor is there evidence to suggest that the resident tried to complain but the landlord failed to respond. It follows that in accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her concerns about the suitability of the property it had allocated to her falls outside of our jurisdiction.
If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s decision to allocate the property to her, she should raise this as a new complaint with the landlord in the first instance. If the resident remains unhappy with the response and exhausts the landlord’s complaints procedure, she may refer the matter to us as a new complaint.

The resident’s reports of ASB including noise nuisance from her neighbour and that they were running a business from their property

It is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether someone has or has not committed a nuisance or ASB. It is our role to establish whether the landlord’s response was in line with its legal and policy obligations and industry best practices and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances.
The landlord’s ASB policy states:
1. all reports of ASB will be risk assessed to help direct and shape a case management response which is sensitive to the victim’s circumstances and needs.
2. it will offer advice and support to residents and early intervention such as:

i. initial investigations by interviews and verbal warning

ii. a 3-stage formal warning process

iii. acceptable behaviour agreements

iv. mediation

v. support referrals.

it will consider legal remedies such as:

i. an undertaking to the court

ii. civil injunctions

iii. criminal behaviour orders

iv. possession proceedings

it commits to partnership working with the police, local authorities, education, and other social housing providers.
before it closes a case, it will consult with the complainant and explain its intentions.
it will close a case where:

i. investigations have been concluded, appropriate action has been taken and no further incidents have occurred over a given period.

ii. it is unable to gather sufficient evidence to take any action.

iii. another agency is dealing with the case which no longer requires its involvement.

The evidence shows that between 19 May 2023 and 16 April 2024 the resident made 35 reports of ASB and concerns about her neighbour to the landlord. The reports included:
1. the neighbour’s son kicking a ball under the archway of the flat.
2. the neighbour playing loud music with sound equipment, purposefully stomping on the floors, and running the washing machine during antisocial hours.
3. items being left in the communal hallways associated to the neighbour’s catering business that was believed to be operating out of their property.
4. the neighbour’s sister overstaying their visa.
5. the landlord’s out-of-hours service disturbed the resident to let the neighbour in. The neighbour had called it and said they were locked out of the building and gave her name as a contact.
6. the neighbour leaving the communal front door open.
7. the neighbour falsely claiming benefits whilst going on several holidays during the year.
8. the neighbour carrying trays for the catering business through the property.
9. the neighbour “fraudulently enrolling” their sister’s children in local schools.
10. the neighbour leaving their son alone for prolonged periods.
11. the neighbour’s daughter spray painting the archway of the flat.
12. the neighbour spilling oil at the bottom of the communal stairs.
13. the use of cannabis.
14. the communal door handle being ripped off by the neighbour’s son. The resident had reported feeling scared as the neighbour’s soon was involved in street gangs.
15. the neighbour “illegally subletting” their flat.
The resident initially reported noise nuisance to the landlord during May and June 2023. She also explained that her mental health was deteriorating as a result. The landlord responded by:
1. opening an ASB case.
2. asking the resident to keep a written record of any further issues.
3. carrying out a risk assessment which found the case was high risk and issuing an action plan which included:

i. reviewing the case with the resident weekly.

ii. referring the resident for appropriate support needs

iii. contacting partner agencies.

iv. ensuring the resident remained anonymous.

asking the resident whether she was receiving support for her mental health and if it could provide any further support or signpost her to any community organisations.

The landlord’s actions were overall in accordance with its ASB policy. However, the landlord’s risk assessment categorised the case as high risk. The form indicates that in such cases, the landlord ought to consider submitting a referral for a multi-agency meeting. The evidence does not suggest that the landlord did so. It is unclear why the landlord failed to consider referring the case in line with its policy. In the absence of evidence which provides a good reason for this not happening, this was a failing.
The resident also reported that during June 2023 she was disturbed by the landlord’s out of hours service, when her neighbour had been locked out. The resident said this was distressing because she had taken medication, and she thought the call was for a personal issue relating to her mother’s health. The landlord appropriately called the resident following her report. It apologised for the disturbance and advised it would investigate why the service called the resident and did not provide alternative advice about how to access the property. The landlord also followed this up in an email. In the landlord’s stage 1 response in September 2023, it said that it had taken action to follow this up with the team in question to prevent this from occurring again. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
In relation to the ASB, the landlord said it conducted an unannounced visit during June 2023 to speak with the neighbour. However, the neighbour was not in. It said it contacted other residents to see if they had been impacted by any ASB within the block. This was appropriate and also in accordance with the ASB policy. The landlord said other residents did not wish to engage with it or provide evidence. It also conducted a further visit to the neighbour to discuss the resident’s reports including:
1. running of a catering business from the property.
2. applying to schools for the neighbour’s sister’s children.
3. the neighbour’s son kicking a ball off the side of the flat.
4. using the resident’s name as a point of contact for the out of hours service.
The landlord subsequently wrote to the resident during this time and provided an update on the case. It said:
1. it would continue to monitor the situation and asked the resident to continue to record any evidence of noise nuisance.
2. the resident should continue to keep diary sheets.
3. it was unable to use third party hearsay evidence as part of its investigations.
4. the resident could use her housing officer as a single point of contact which would ensure her contact remained manageable. This appeared to be in response to a large volume of emails being sent to various members of staff.
The landlord also referred the resident’s reports about the neighbour running a business to environmental health for further investigation. Although this was positive to note, the landlord did not address the resident’s report about the neighbour applying to local schools. The landlord should have been clear at the outset which issues constituted ASB, and therefore fell within its remit, and which matters were best referred elsewhere. As the landlord did not provide such clarity, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations and she was, understandably, expecting the landlord to deal with each issue she had reported.
The landlord continued to act in line with its policy. It took proportionate action to investigate the resident’s concerns and worked in partnership with other agencies.
The resident made further reports in July 2023 about loud noise and catering equipment being left in the communal hallway. The landlord carried out a further risk assessment and found there was a medium risk. However, there is no evidence the landlord updated its action plan or explained what action it intended to take, if any.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have updated its plan at this stage with the actions it was intending to take. This would have managed the resident’s expectations and helped the landlord in ensuring that it was taking action that it had identified as being required.
The landlord’s case management system noted that it would conduct a home visit to the resident. This was to discuss her concerns further as during July 2023, it was noted that the ASB was impacting her mental health. Despite the note, there is no evidence a home visit took place. This is also after the resident asking for one to take place on at least 2 further occasions for the following 2 weeks (during the beginning and middle of August 2023). This was a failure because the landlord did not visit the resident. This caused distress to the resident because she felt that it was not taking her concerns about the impact on her health seriously.
The evidence shows that the landlord called the resident at the end of August 2023, approximately 3 weeks later. It noted the resident was distressed and recorded additional reports of ASB. It said it would arrange a meeting for 22 August 2023. There is no evidence this meeting took place. This was a further failing by the landlord because the resident felt the ASB was persisting, and it was therefore inappropriate that the landlord failed to meet with her.
During the end of August 2023, the resident raised further concerns that her neighbour was:
1. still using the property for a catering business.
2. claiming benefits but affording several holidays.
3. enrolling children that did not live in the property into local schools.

The resident said she was concerned the landlord was not conducting any visits and asked for an update. She also said she had contacted the school to notify them.

The landlord responded by explaining that it was still liaising with environmental health. It also conducted a further risk assessment where it found the risk to be high. It issued another action plan to the resident which said:
1. it would provide her with weekly updates.
2. it would refer the resident for appropriate support needs.
3. it would review the case.
4. it noted the resident wanted to remain anonymous.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to devise an action plan, it does not appear to have been fully appropriate in the circumstances. Given the length of time the issues were ongoing for, and that the landlord had assessed the risk as high for a second time, it is unclear why it did not consider further intervention. The landlord’s ASB policy notes that the landlord can consider formal warnings, acceptable behaviour contracts, or a referral to its multi-agency partnership. This would have been in accordance with its ASB policy.
During September 2023 the resident made further reports that her neighbour was leaving their son alone in the property, and their daughter was using graffiti on the outside of the flat. She also reiterated her concerns about the legality of the neighbour’s sister being in the country as well as the school enrolment issue. She said she did not understand how the neighbour was “getting away with all of this”.
The landlord arranged to visit the resident, but it was unable to agree a date because she was in hospital. However, the landlord said in its stage 1 response at the end of September 2023 it conducted a case review meeting and reviewed the current and future actions concerning this case. However, the landlord did not provide evidence of what it discussed at this meeting or any conclusions it had drawn regarding the necessary actions of the case. As a result, the Ombudsman was unable to verify what action the landlord had decided to take.
During October 2023 the resident was receiving support from an advocate group and a local ASB charity. There is evidence that the organisation liaised with the landlord and asked it for an update. The landlord provided its contact details so that it could be contacted. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord also issued a warning letter to the neighbour in October 2023. Within this, it set out the reports it had received and reminded the neighbour of their responsibilities under their tenancy agreement.
The landlord acted in accordance with its policy by issuing the neighbour with a warning in relation to the ASB. However, there is no evidence the landlord managed the resident’s expectations about what it could do regarding the resident’s reports about the school enrolment issue. Such concerns would ordinarily fall under the remit of the local authority. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have informed the resident of this at the earliest opportunity given that it would not and could not investigate this matter. Further, there is no evidence it acted on the reports of graffiti which was a failure to adequately consider all the issues, manage the resident’s expectations, and take appropriate action.
The resident continued to report noise nuisance and explained the warning letter had made the behaviour worse. She also said she was unhappy that the landlord had hand delivered the letter. She felt this had put her in danger. She asked the landlord to ensure she was out of the property in future when that happened.
The landlord said that it had sent the warning letter by recorded delivery, but as this had been refused it needed to hand deliver the letter. It also committed to conducting ad hoc visits to the property to monitor the noise and that the resident would remain anonymous. The landlord asked the resident if she needed support from her housing officer to access the noise app to record incidents. It refuted that it had put the resident in danger and said it had taken the resident’s vulnerabilities into account when it conducted its risk assessments.
The resident’s concerns about reprisals and her safety are noted. However, the landlord acted appropriately in ensuring that the neighbour was in receipt of the warning letter. It is also noted that the resident had concerns that the behaviour had escalated after the warning was issued. However, the landlord’s actions in issuing the correspondence were proportionate and in accordance with its policy.
There is evidence the landlord went on to arrange a home visit to the resident and the neighbour separately. The evidence indicates the visit with the resident included her advocate and ASB charity worker. The landlord has not provided evidence of what was discussed during the meeting or any actions it had agreed. It is unclear whether the landlord failed to document the discussion, or if it has simply failed to provide it to this Service for our investigation. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have ensured that a clear record of the meeting was kept. Not only would this assist in determining and monitoring future actions, but it would also ensure that there was an accurate audit trail of the discussions that had taken place. This would be useful for the landlord when reviewing its own handling of the ASB case, and in the event of an independent investigation.
Further, the resident’s charity worker asked if the landlord would consider:
1. conducting a proportionality review on the actions taken to date to consider the direction of the investigation and further actions that could be taken to have the maximum impact.
2. legal against the neighbour given a warning letter was issued.
3. raising an ASB case review through the local authority to bring all the professionals to discuss the case.
4. installing CCTV at the property as a preventative measure and to monitor any damage being done to the property.
5. conducting further enquiries with neighbours and other relevant agencies.
6. meeting again to discuss the landlord’s progress.
There is no evidence the landlord responded to this. This was a failing. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to confirm the actions it was going to take and to respond to the specific queries that had been raised.
It is noted, however, the landlord did write to the resident separately 3 days later. It said it was considering the legal options available to it. To support this, it asked the resident to provide a witness statement. This was positive to note because it demonstrated the landlord had considered which actions were most appropriate to take and communicated this to the resident.
The resident continued to explain during October 2023 to the landlord that she was distressed, and her mental health was deteriorating. At the time she reported the neighbour’s son had ripped the handle to the communal front door away leaving it insecure. The resident said she thought she would “end up in prison or dead” because she thought the landlord was taking the side of her neighbour. She asked the landlord for a management move.
The landlord responded and said:
1. it had emailed the resident and updated her on how it was managing the case. It was receiving her emails but due to the volume of contact it was unable to respond to each one.
2. it was undertaking a lot of work in the background to investigate and respond to the areas brought to its attention.
3. it had raised a safeguarding concern with adult social services because of shared concerns for the resident’s wellbeing.
4. it was committed to continuing to contact and communicate with the resident on an ongoing basis.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord was entitled to refer the resident to its previous update and advice about the case. This is because it had only provided its previous update a few days prior to the resident’s contact. This was compliant with the frequency of contact it had agreed to in its action plan.
The landlord went on to interview the neighbour about the reports made against her including noise nuisance, storage in the communal area and use of the premises as a business. It created a detailed record of the interview which was positive to note. The landlord then arranged to update the resident and invited her into its offices. There is no evidence this meeting occurred or that the landlord contacted the resident for a further 8 weeks with an update.
It is unclear if the meeting went ahead and the landlord did update the resident, but failed to record these actions. However, the evidence does not demonstrate it was following the commitments in its action plan which said it would provide weekly updates. This was a failing. Furthermore, the resident said this caused her distress because she did not feel the landlord was actioning her reports.
The evidence demonstrates that the landlord was liaising with adult social services regarding its safeguarding referral during this time. From the evidence we have seen, it is noted that that the landlord was taking proportionate steps to ensure that the resident was adequately supported. It was also working with partner agencies to ensure that support was in place.
The evidence suggests that in December 2023 the environmental health team had referred the resident’s case for an ASB case review. The outcome of the review was as follows:
1. a multi-agency meeting with various stakeholders needed to be completed.
2. the CCTV needed to be activated as a priority.
3. the communal door needed to be replaced as a priority.
4. the landlord needed to issue the noise app to the resident and provide additional support to show the resident how to use this.
5. there needed to be emphasis on partnership working to support the resident and had a professionals meeting occurred earlier this could have facilitated the outcomes being sought.
6. the resident’s expectations could have been managed more clearly from the outset through a robust action plan to explain the roles and responsibilities of the landlord in dealing with ASB complaints.
As above, it is unclear why the landlord did not take some of the actions identified by the review sooner. Such actions are set out in its ASB policy, and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to ensure that this was being followed and informing its approach.
The review referred to the installation of CCTV. However, the evidence does not demonstrate that this was explored prior to the review. It is unclear when this was first raised as a result. However, it is further evidence of poor record keeping by the landlord.
The landlord conducted a wellbeing call on 27 December 2023. The resident explained she wanted to appeal the case review as she felt the landlord’s officer had lied. The landlord noted it had a productive conversation with the resident detailing that it required evidence to move forwards. It is unclear if the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about the truthfulness of the officer. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed these concerns and to ensure that the discussion was documented.
The resident also expressed she was upset her Community Psychiatric Nurse (CPN) was not in attendance at the professionals meeting. It is noted this was due to the availability of the CPN as opposed to a lack of invite from the landlord. It is unclear whether rescheduling the meeting was considered, or if the CPN’s opinion on matters was sought at any point before or after the meeting. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered obtaining the CPN’s comments in the circumstances.
During January 2024 the resident told the landlord she felt it had not “investigated the neighbour’s tenancy breaches”. She added that the neighbour’s son was intimidating, and the community door kept being broken. The landlord said it would download the CCTV footage and reviewed it on 4 January 2024. There is no evidence that it did this. It also agreed to discuss the resident’s concerns with the neighbour the following week. There is also no evidence that it did this.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 April 2024 and said that it had closed the ASB case against her neighbour. It summarised the actions it had taken which included:
1. putting the reports to the neighbour, which were denied.
2. liaising with the police and environmental health department to obtain evidence of ASB, which had been unsuccessful.
3. installing CCTV cameras in the communal areas which had been unsuccessful at capturing evidence of ASB.
4. employing an external security company to patrol the property which had been unsuccessful at capturing evidence of ASB.
5. liaising with the resident’s support network and other agencies in the ASB case review.
6. it would re-open the ASB case if evidence were received that could be used in legal proceedings.
7. the resident was to report incidents of noise nuisance if required.
We have not been provided with any evidence relating to the external security company and its patrols. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to ensure that any details pertaining to these was documented within the ASB case file. Similarly, the landlord has failed to provide evidence that it had regularly reviewed CCTV footage following its activation. Therefore, while the landlord’s comments around closing the case are acknowledged, not all of its actions are adequately supported by contemporaneous evidence.
The resident explained that there were particular areas of the landlord’s handling she asked for the investigation to address. She said:
1. she felt she did not have enough support to access the noise app. This prevented her from providing evidence of noise nuisance.
2. she felt the landlord had not been forthcoming in trying to support her to access its evidence gathering methods.
3. the landlord had closed her ASB case prematurely and had not considered the cumulative reports.
The evidence shows that between September 2023 and December 2023 the landlord offered the resident support to set up the noise app. It is unclear why the resident did not accept the offer. Furthermore, there is no evidence before this time that the resident had explained she was having difficulties accessing or using the noise app. It is also noted that the landlord had been viewing the resident’s recordings sent via a messaging app.
We are therefore satisfied that the landlord offered the resident support to access the app and that it was also open to reviewing her evidence sent via other platforms.
The resident said she felt that although she had been given a single point of contact, which was suggested in the ASB case review, this was not adhered to. The evidence demonstrates that various channels of communication and members of staff were involved in liaising with the resident. This is because the landlord conveyed its position verbally, in writing, as well as during home visits which were conducted by members of staff. It is important to note that the resident also consistently contacted the landlord through various different members of staff by telephone and email.
However, the landlord had a responsibility to ensure that the single point of contact arrangements had been implemented and that the resident was clear about how this would operate in practice. We have seen no evidence that appropriate action was taken in relation to this.
The resident said although the landlord said it had contacted her on a weekly basis, this did not happen consistently. This was a key action in of all the landlord’s action plans with the resident. The landlord explained it had received a large volume of communication from the resident throughout the case. There is also evidence it had told the resident it was unable to respond to “each and every email”.
The Ombudsman has reviewed the evidence relating to the frequency of the landlord’s communications. The investigation has highlighted an instance in or around October 2023 where the landlord failed to demonstrate it provided an update for 8 weeks, which was a failure. However, the landlord, in the majority of cases, responded to the resident on a two-weekly basis. As such the evidence shows the landlord failed to demonstrate it consistently communicated on a weekly basis as agreed to in its action plan. However, the Ombudsman is unable to find that the landlord’s actions significantly impacted the resident as it is noted that the landlord remained in regular contact with her.
The resident said the landlord had suggested a managed move as a possible resolution. She explained she was confused about why the landlord would suggest this if it did not believe there was ASB occurring. While the resident’s comments are noted, there is nothing to suggest that the landlord did not believe that there was no ASB occurring. Rather, the landlord did not consider there was sufficient evidence to take enforcement action. Nevertheless, the evidence shows that the resident requested a managed move in or around October 2023. As a result, it appears the offer was made in response to a request that had initially been made by the resident. The landlord subsequently agreed and offered the resident an alternative property. There is also evidence that the landlord is continuing to consider further alternative properties for the resident.
The resident has advised that the issues with noise nuisance are persisting. She has advised that her CPN has also witnessed the noise. Given the resident’s comments, it would be reasonable for the landlord to conduct further investigations into the reports in accordance with its ASB policy.
When the landlord responded to the complaint, it said it had not found any failings in its handling of the ASB. It is unclear how the landlord reached this conclusion. While it is noted that the landlord did take appropriate and proportionate action in accordance with its policy at various stages, we have found several failings in its overall handling of the resident’s reports. Taking into account the failings we have identified, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the reports of ASB it had received. Having considered this Service’s Remedies Guidance and the detriment that was caused to the resident, it appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £600 compensation. This is in respect of the distress and inconvenience the resident has been caused as a result of the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports.
In addition, based on the information that has been provided to this Service, the landlord’s records are inadequate. The audit trail of the reports received and actions taken does not appear to be accurate. In addition, some of the records are lacking in detail. This has impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report.
In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. The landlord must consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.

Complaint handling

The Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states landlords must respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of the date of acknowledging and logging the complaint. Landlords must also respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy aligns with the timeframes in the Code.
The Code also states:
1. at stage 1 of the process landlords must decide whether an extension to this timescale is needed when considering the complexity of the complaint and then inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10 working days without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident.
2. at stage 2 of the process landlords must decide whether an extension to this timescale is needed when considering the complexity of the complaint and then inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 20 working days without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident.
We contacted the landlord with the resident’s concerns on 31 August 2023 and asked it to provide a formal stage 1 response. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 26 September 2023. This was 18 working days later. This was outside of the timeframes set out in the Code. In addition, there is no evidence the landlord explained its delay or tried to agree a new timeframe with the resident. This was inappropriate because the landlord is expected to do this in line with the Code. The resident told the Ombudsman this caused uncertainty to the resident about when she could expect the landlord to respond.
The resident says that her advocate may have escalated her complaint in or around October 2023. There is no other evidence to support this. Furthermore, the landlord has no record of receiving an escalation request. Nevertheless, following further contact from the resident, we asked the landlord on 20 February 2024 to progress the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its internal complaints process.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 April 2024. This was 39 working days later. The Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord’s submissions that during this time it was dealing with complex advancements in the case. It said that its resource had been focused on providing a “supportive service” to the resident. However, the Ombudsman considers a supportive service encompasses the timely progression of and transparent communication around the resident’s complaint.
The fact therefore remains that there is no evidence between February and April 2024 the landlord explained its delay or provided a new timeframe for the response to be issued. This was a failing because it was a departure from the Code.
The resident felt the landlord had not progressed her complaint for a long period. The landlord’s stage 2 response explained it had reviewed “188 emails” from the resident during the escalation period in question and could not identify an escalation request. The Ombudsman considers the landlord explained its position regarding the escalation of the resident’s complaint and this was reasonable in the circumstances.
However, overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. This is because the landlord failed to issue its complaint responses in the required timeframes. This caused inconvenience because it prevented her from seeking recourse from this Service. Further it failed at both stages of its complaints process to notify the resident its responses would be delayed or to seek to agree a new timeframe to issue them. This caused detriment to the resident because she was not updated, and this caused her uncertainty about when she could expect a response.
In line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, compensation of £50 is appropriate to address the detriment to the resident for the landlord’s failure to communicate its delays.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her concerns that it had allocated her an unsuitable property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB including noise nuisance from her neighbour and that they were running a business from their property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

Within 35 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. pay the resident £650 compensation comprised of:

i. £600 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

ii. £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

self-assess against the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management’ or to provide the most recent self-assessment it has made against recommendations.
arrange for complaint handling refresher training for relevant staff members to address how it handles delays in issuing complaint responses.
provide evidence of compliance with these orders.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord contact the resident to discuss any concerns that the ASB is persisting. It may wish to consider writing to the resident to explain whether it intends to open a case and the reasons behind its decision. This is to ensure the resident is clear about any action it intends to take.