Waverley Borough Council (202314489)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314489

Waverley Borough Council

17 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 reports of ASB.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a flexible tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom house. She has lived at the property with her 2 children since April 2020. The landlord has told this Service it is not aware of any vulnerabilities for the resident.
The resident has experienced issues of alleged noise nuisance from her next-door neighbour since May 2020, which she reported to the landlord and Environmental Health. On 16 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord, via her MP, to report that her neighbour was continuing to make noise and had become verbally aggressive towards her.
The landlord responded to the resident’s MP on 16 August 2022, with a plan of actions for both the landlord and the resident to take, with a view to reviewing the case in a months’ time.
On 21 May 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that she had been subject to harassment, noise, and abuse from her neighbour since 2020, and the landlord’s failure to deal with her reports had caused the issue to escalate. The resident stated her quality of life and mental health was suffering as a result.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 24 July 2023. It acknowledged the resident had made many reports since 2020 and a change in housing officers over that time had not helped with consistency and the continual review of the issues. The landlord said:
1. The cases had largely been closed due to lack of evidence or the issues not being continuous.
2. Evidence suggested a 2-way conflict between the resident and her a neighbour.
3. An acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) had been issued to both parties and it hoped this would manage the issue.
4. A community trigger had been received from the resident and would be considered shortly.
The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord on 29 July 2023. She said that while there may have been a break in reports, the ASB was continuing, and she was unhappy with the response provided.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 23 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged it had not dealt with the resident’s concerns as promptly or in as much detail as it should have done. The landlord said:
1. It was sorry for the delay in issuing her stage 1 response.
2. The Community Trigger Panel had made several recommendations to address the issue, and it hoped the resident would notice an improvement.
3. If no significant improvement had been made within 2 months, it would discuss the matter with its legal team and consider other options to resolve the situation.
4. The resident’s best option may be a move from her current home, and it would discuss this with her further.
The resident remains dissatisfied and brought the complaint to this Service. The resident states she wants the landlord to take action to stop the ASB she is experiencing and does not want to leave her current home.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
The resident has informed this Service that the incidents of ASB date back to when she moved into the property in 2020. While the resident reported these matters to the landlord, the reports were closed, and no formal complaint was raised. Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be 12 months of the matters arising. For this reason, the scope of the investigation is limited to the resident’s reports from May 2022 up until the stage 2 response was issued on 23 August 2023.
The landlord in this case is a council, which also carries out the function of Environmental Health. The resident has also complained to Environmental Health about its dealing with her noise complaints. Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme specifies that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”. The Memorandum of Understanding between the Housing Ombudsman and Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) sets out the complaints that each Ombudsman is responsible for considering. This states that the LGSCO is responsible for complaints about Environmental Health. As such, the resident is advised if she remains dissatisfied, she can contact the LGSCO.
The resident has informed this Service how the issues have impacted on her health. It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The evidence shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. The resident has multiple concerns about the landlord’s activities. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or personal injury.

ASB

The purpose of this investigation is not to establish if noise nuisance or antisocial behaviour have occurred, as that is not within the Ombudsman’s remit. However, the Ombudsman can assess whether or not the landlord responded appropriately and reasonably to the resident’s reports, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. The resident’s neighbour is also a tenant of the landlord.
The resident raised a number of reports with the landlord regarding her neighbour from 2020 to 2022, with the last case being closed on 15 June 2022. The notes of the case recorded there was no outstanding noise issues or substantial ASB between both neighbours. This report will not comment on the outcomes of the previous cases. However, they are mentioned for context.
On 2 August 2022 the resident raised further concerns with the landlord, via her MP, about the behaviour of her neighbour. She said the mediation she had previously agreed to with the neighbour had been unsuccessful as the neighbour denied any wrongdoing. The resident said the police had been called on multiple occasions and the behaviour was having a physical and mental impact on her. She said the neighbour:
1. Could be heard arguing loudly inside her home.
2. Screamed at people when they walked past her house.
3. Was verbally aggressive and threatening when confronted.
4. Had 5 dogs that were kept in a shed and barked day and night.
The landlord replied to the resident, via her MP, on 16 August 2022 and confirmed it had received 14 diary sheets from the residents from 3 to 25 July 2022. The landlord said that 2 logs referred to domestic issues, while the rest of the logs referred to dogs barking and Environmental Health had been dealing with the dog noise issue. The landlord listed several actions it would pursue, which included:
1. Speaking to the police to identify if there were any ongoing issues.
2. Writing to the neighbour to confirm their responsibilities as a tenant.
3. Review the case in 1 months’ time alongside the further diary entries that the resident would submit.
Landlord records indicate that a review of the case took place on 16 September 2022 and that actions were raised and allocated to the resident’s housing officer. It is not clear from the documentation provided what these actions were or whether the resident submitted any further diary sheets. A further note on the case suggests the landlord visited the resident on 17 October 2022, but she was not home. The landlord closed the “neighbour dispute” on 20 December 2022. This Service has seen no evidence of any counter allegations made by the neighbour during this period.
The landlord’s ASB policy defines a neighbour dispute as a conflict between neighbours “where there has been no breach of tenancy agreement”. The tenancy agreement places an obligation on the tenant not to engage in unacceptable behaviour, such as:
1. Anything that causes or is likely to cause a nuisance, harassment, alarm, or distress.
2. Anything that interferes with the peace, comfort, or wellbeing of other people.

The tenancy agreement also states a tenant must not allow any animal kept at the property to cause a nuisance to anyone in the local area.

The landlord’s ASB policy 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 which directly or indirectly relates to its housing related function.
The policy also provides examples of what the landlord recognises as ASB. This includes:
1. Harassment or intimidation of a person for any reason.
2. Persistent noise nuisance.
3. Aggressive or threatening language or behaviour.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord will not accept any nuisance or ASB and will take firm action to tackle reports of this. It states the landlord will use whatever ASB tool it considers to be reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances and these include mediation, an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC), a demotion order, injunctions, exclusions orders and possession orders. In cases that require “in-depth case work or legal action”, the landlord states it will take a multi-agency approach to dealing with the matter.
The behaviour the resident reported to the landlord was consistent with that as defined by the landlord as being a breach of their tenancy agreement. The resident reported persistent noise nuisance, evidenced in the diary sheets, and stated the neighbour was aggressive when approached. In accordance with the landlord’s policy, it is reasonable to conclude the matter should not have been treated as a neighbour dispute and the ASB policy should have been applied. The landlord has provided no evidence to demonstrate the actions it took to investigate the resident’s reports or its rationale for treating the matter as a neighbour dispute rather than ASB. In the absence of this information, this Service cannot conclude that the landlord treated the resident fairly. This was in regard to considering her specific needs and concerns and on the basis of the evidence provided. This was unreasonable.
The landlord’s ASB policy states it will complete an initial risk assessment of the ASB reported and will arrange a mutually convenient time to meet with the complainant, advise them of what support is available and agree an action plan. The policy also states the landlord will update the complainant on a regular basis. The landlord failed to complete a risk assessment when the reports were made and did not attempt to meet with the resident prior to the review taking place a month later. This Service has seen no evidence of the resident being updated on the matter. This was unreasonable and caused the resident to feel her concerns were not being taken seriously.
On 6 and 7 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to report that she was still experiencing issues with her neighbour. She said the neighbour was shouting and swearing at her, and that the dogs at the property were keeping her and her children awake during the night. The landlord contacted the resident on 10 February 2023. The landlord’s notes of the call record the issue was part of an “ongoing and long-term neighbour dispute” and that action in relation to historical reports was unlikely due to the number of allegations from both sides and the time that had passed. The landlord offered the resident a further mediation referral. This Service has seen no evidence of any counter allegations made by the neighbour during this period.
The resident’s reports to the landlord were further evidence which was consistent with behaviour the landlord would consider a breach of their tenancy agreement further. Deviating from its policy, the landlord recorded the matter as a further neighbour dispute despite there being no counter allegations from the neighbour at this time. It would appear the landlord had relied upon its previous knowledge of the issues rather than applying its policy to deal with the new reports and this was unreasonable.
The landlord’s ASB policy contains a broad range of solutions that it had available to deal with ASB. These include:
1. Home visits, including joint visits with a member of the local force.
2. Interviewing the alleged perpetrator.
3. Warning letters.
4. CCTV and noise gathering equipment.
It understandable that when allegations are made from both sides, it is difficult for the landlord to know which side is at fault. However, the landlord’s policy gives it several tools it can use to effectively gather evidence and discourage further behaviour. Had these tools been considered and implemented at an earlier stage, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord would have had the option to make evidenced based decisions in its handling of the resident’s reports. However, there is no evidence that these measures were considered, and the landlord continued to view the matter as a neighbour dispute.
On 6 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and said she was “struggling” with her neighbours, and the situation was making her unwell. She said the noise from the dogs was persistent and when she politely raised the matter with the neighbour she was met with “abuse”. The resident said she had reported the matter to Environmental Health, but the noise had continued.
The landlord replied to the resident the same day and stated if the neighbour was willing to attend mediation, it would facilitate this. The landlord also advised the resident to speak with her neighbour and explain how the situation affects her. In the circumstances, the landlord’s proposed action was unreasonable as the resident had already informed it she was met with “abuse” when she approached the neighbour.
The landlord was made aware of further reports consistent with potential breaches of the tenancy agreement by the neighbour between March and April 2024. These include:
1. 10 March 2023 – another tenant in the area contacted the landlord to say they had been subjected to abusive behaviour from the neighbour and confirmed the noise from the dogs was a nuisance.
2. 12 March 2023 – the resident’s mother contacted the landlord to report the neighbour’s dogs were barking. Landlord records state a text was sent to the neighbour to “advise them”.
3. 13 March 2023 – the resident reported the neighbour was playing loud music while they were out of the property.
4. 24 April 2023 – the resident’s mother reported she was verbally abused by the neighbour in front of the resident’s children. She alleged the neighbour stated they were “going to kill the children” and the police were called.
The text the landlord sent to the neighbour on 12 March 2023 was the first recorded action it had taken following the resident’s report in February 2023. There was no action taken in relation to the other 3 reports, including action for potential breaches of tenancy. The lack of action taken by the landlord, and its lack of recorded rationale for not acting, was unreasonable.
On 21 May 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that she had been subjected to continued harassment from her neighbour for a period of 3 years, which was making her unwell, and she wanted the matter dealt with. In her complaint the resident said:
1. The neighbour had made a number of counter allegations in response to her reports to the landlord that were vexatious. Had the allegations been investigated, the resident could prove she was out of the property when the alleged incidents had taken place.
2. Mediation had taken place previously and the neighbours had suggested she had a problem with their traveller heritage. She was unaware of the neighbour’s heritage prior to this point and stated the issue was not who they are but the noise they make.
3. She had been subject to verbal abuse on many occasions and consequently suffers from anxiety.
4. The barking from the dogs had been persistent since January 2023 and this had been recorded on diary sheets and within the noise app.
5. The noise app was only accessed by the landlord when she reported the neighbour had threatened to kill her family.
6. The tenancy agreement states that nuisance and ASB will not be accepted.
Landlord records from 24 May 2023 suggest it sent a letter to both households. It is not clear from the documentation provided what information the letters contained. However, in the absence of any risk assessment or meeting with the resident, as per its ASB policy, the landlord continued to treat the issue as neighbour dispute and did not consider gathering evidence or dealing with any potential tenancy breaches.
An email from Environmental Health to the landlord, dated 22 June 2023, said that following a meeting that took place on 31 May 2023, it was agreed the landlord would lead this case going forward. This Service has not been provided with any further details relating to the meeting.
The resident made further reports to the landlord during June 2023. On 29 June 2023 the landlord visited the area to speak with other residents. It was noted that one resident had captured a video of the neighbour “extreme screaming”, and another resident commented upon barking dogs. At least 1 resident was not home during the visit. Landlord notes indicate that tenants were not asked specifically about the behaviour of the resident or her neighbour.
The landlord also attended the neighbour’s address. The neighbour played the landlord a recording of the resident’s child “screaming persistently” by the fence of the property. In its internal notes, the landlord commented that after seeing both recordings, the problems were from both parties and an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) should be served on the resident and the neighbour.
The landlord had received multiple reports of the neighbour’s behaviour that had been targeted against the resident, and one other tenant. It had viewed footage to show the resident’s child was screaming in her garden on a one occasion. The landlord’s ASB policy states that children playing or one-off incidents do not constitute ASB and are more relevant to neighbour disputes. The evidence against each party was not balanced and the decision to issue an ABC in these circumstances was unreasonable and counter to the policies in place.
During July 2023 the resident continued to report to the landlord that the neighbour’s dogs were barking and howling for prolonged periods of time. The neighbour reported to the landlord that the resident was playing loud music on 2 occasions. It is unclear what action the landlord took, other than to serve the ABCs on both parties. Landlord records indicate the ABCs were served on 21 July 2023 and both parties refused to sign them.
On 24 July 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It acknowledged the resident had made a number of reports about her neighbour and that these had largely been closed due to a lack of clear evidence or a break in reports. The landlord stated it hoped that now the ABCs had been issued, the situation would improve for both tenants, and it would continue to monitor the situation with Environmental Health. It also conceded that a change in housing officers and multiple cases had not helped with consistency and continual renewal of the issues.
The landlord’s response offered no meaningful resolution to the resident’s complaint. It will have been aware that both parties had refused to sign the ABC. Therefore, the landlord could have reasonably expected the ABC to be ineffective. The resident subsequently escalated her complaint with the landlord.
The resident also applied for a community trigger. This is a process that allows residents to request a review of their case when they feel that their complaints of ASB have not been dealt with effectively. On 26 July 2023, the community trigger was discussed by a panel that included the landlord, Environmental Health, and the police. The minutes of the meeting highlighted the following points:
1. The landlord had viewed the matter as “six of one, half a dozen of the other”. Its response to the ASB reports had been “bitty” and despite “a lot of evidence” no tenancy action had been taken for 3 years.
2. It was “not clear” what action the landlord had taken or whether it had followed its ASB procedure.
3. Concerns were raised that an ABC had been issued to both parties without a proper review of the complaints or partner involvement. It was also noted that an ABC was “unrealistic” given the behaviour had continued for a long period of time.
4. The police had a significant amount of evidence to support the landlord in use of its ASB tools and powers. However, previous recommendations and information sent by the police had not been acknowledged by the landlord.
5. Concerns were raised that following the “door knock” carried out by the landlord, many residents were not home and when they had tried to contact the landlord later, they had been unsuccessful.
6. There was sufficient evidence for Environmental Health to issue the neighbour with a noise abatement notice. However, there was concerns that the notice may make matters worse for the resident without the support of tenancy enforcement action.
7. The police were investigating a criminal harassment case against the resident and would be submitting it to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for a charging decision against the neighbour.
The panel recorded several actions that needed to be taken. Environmental Health would serve a noise abatement notice in the following week. It was agreed the landlord would:
1. Within 1 week, determine what tenancy action had been taken, including:
  1. Whether the neighbour been spoken to.
  2. Whether any warnings had previously been given.
  3. Whether the neighbour had obtained the relevant permissions to keep dogs at property.
2. Within 1 week, consider rescinding the ABC against the resident as there was “a clear breach of tenancy” from the neighbour.
3. Within 2 weeks, contact other tenants within the community to ensure they have been spoken to and have had the opportunity to comment upon the issue.
4. Within 2 weeks, consider serving a Community Protection Warning (CPW) on the neighbour.
5. Within 1 month, consider the police’s previous suggestion that the hedge and paths outside the resident’s property are altered to negate the neighbour having to pass the resident’s door to access their own property.
6. Within 3 months, consider applying for an injunction if the criminal harassment case was not taken forward by the CPS.
The results of the community trigger meeting highlighted to the landlord the shortcomings in its approach to dealing with the resident’s concerns. The meeting also produced an action plan for the landlord take forward.
Environmental Health served a noise abatement notice on the neighbour the following day. However, despite further reports from the resident regarding the neighbour’s dog and verbal abuse on 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 August 2023, the landlord took no tenancy enforcement action as recommended at the community trigger meeting. Furthermore, the landlord failed to comply with any of the actions set for it at the community trigger meeting. This was a significant failing and a missed opportunity for the landlord to put things right and attempt to rebuild the landlord / tenant relationship.
On 23 August 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord apologised for not being more proactive in dealing with the resident’s reports of ASB and stated the Community Trigger Panel had made a number of recommendations, and it “hoped” that these recommendations had been actioned and the resident would notice an improvement with her neighbour.
At the time of the LL’s response at stage 2, there was no evidence it had begun to implement the parts of the community trigger meeting it was responsible for. As such, the sentiment of the response and its inability to start to rectify its previous mishandling was unreasonable.
The resident has informed this Service that the situation with her neighbour has continued to escalate. She said she has since been assaulted by the neighbour and the landlord has continually failed to address the neighbour’s alleged breaches of tenancy. The resident states the physical and mental health of her and her children has been affected by the situation and the landlord’s inaction. Initially the resident was a seeking a move as resolution to the issue. However, she has since told this Service that she does not wish to move, and she wants the matter dealt with.
On 12 June 2024 the landlord told this Service that it accepted that “very little” progress had been made in trying to resolve the problems the resident was experiencing with her neighbours. It said in recognition of the delay, it would like to offer the resident £250 compensation.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so the Ombudsman considers whether the redress was in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
There were multiple shortcomings in the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports. It failed to identify the potential tenancy breaches from an early stage and treated all subsequent reports as neighbour disputes. As the reports escalated in severity, the landlord failed to reassess the situation and apply its ASB policy. This led to ineffective action being taken and allowed the behaviour to continue for a prolonged period of time.
The Community Trigger Panel outcome and recommendations should have highlighted to the landlord that its handling of the matters up until this point was unreasonable and on occasion, inappropriate. The panel’s findings and the subsequent stage 2 response were an opportunity for the landlord to learn from its mistakes and begin to resolve the issue. However, this did not happen.
The landlord has provided little evidence of reports made against the resident by the neighbour. It is not disputed further counter allegations have been made and the resident has referred to them in correspondence with the landlord and this Service. However, the landlord has failed to evidence what actions it took to investigate the allegations made by either party and how those investigations informed its decision making.
Due to the gaps in the evidence provided by the landlord, and the lack of recorded decision making, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord acted in line with its obligations or satisfactorily managed the resident’s expectations at the time.
This leads to a finding of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £1,500 compensation to the resident for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for severe maladministration where there have been failings which had a severe long-term impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

A landlord’s complaint handling process is an essential aspect of its overall service delivery provision. An effective complaints process will enable a landlord to identify and address service delivery issues in a timely manner. It will also provide learning for future service provision.
The resident submitted her formal complaint to the landlord on 21 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 13 June 2023 and said she would receive a response by 23 June 2023. The landlord’s complaint policy states that all complaints will be acknowledged and recorded within 3 working days. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint 16 working days after it was received. This was a deviation from its policy.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 and 15 July 2023 to chase her complaint. In her emails she stated she had been unable to speak to the landlord since 6 June 2023. The landlord did not provide the resident with a response or any reassurance that her complaint was being dealt with. This was unreasonable.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 24 July 2023, 44 working days after the resident’s complaint was received. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days. The landlord informed the resident she would receive a reply within 25 working days. The landlord’s response time was not in line with its policy, or the timescales it had initially given the resident, which caused the resident to chase the response on multiple occasions. The distress the resident was experiencing would have been evident to the landlord in the communications she sent. This was unreasonable.
The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord on 29 July 2023 and stated the length of time taken to receive the stage 1 response was “well in excess” of the landlord’s policy timescale.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 23 August 2023, 18 working days after it received the resident’s escalation request. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will issue a stage 2 response with 15 days. However, paragraph 5.13 of the Complaint Handling Code (2002) states that a landlord must issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days. While the landlord’s response time did not comply with its policy, it did comply with the Code and was reasonable.
The response apologised for the delay in responding to the resident at stage 1 and said the complaint arrived at a time when several changes were being made to the management structure, which resulted in it taking much longer to investigate her complaint. The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation will be considered where it has failed to follow its policies or where complaint handling has been poor. This is no evidence the landlord considered the impact its complaint handling had on the resident or applied its compensation policy. This was unreasonable.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so the Ombudsman considers whether the redress was in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord failed to issue its stage 1 response within the timescales set out in its policy or the extended timescale given to the resident when her complaint was acknowledged. The landlord did not communicate the reasons for any delays with the resident, despite her repeated attempts to chase the complaint. This leads to a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused as a result of its failure. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the impact of the service failure to the resident was minimal and may not have affected the overall outcome.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology, from the Chief Executive, for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £1,600 compensation, made up of:
  1. £1,500 for its failings in handling the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. £100 for its failures in complaint handling.
3. Arrange refresher training for all staff who handle reports of antisocial behaviour, noise nuisance or tenancy breaches to prevent a recurrence of the failings identified in this report.
4. Conduct a meaningful review of the resident’s ASB case and identify a proactive action plan (or provide evidence the below has been completed within the last month), which includes:
  1. An updated risk assessment.
  2. Providing the resident with support for evidence gathering, considering the tools available, including CCTV and noise monitoring equipment.
  3. A single point of contact to take a holistic approach to resolving the ASB matter.
  4. Liaise with the resident and review available evidence to make informed decisions in line with its policy to tackle any ASB identified.
  5. A multi-agency approach to resolving the issue, including involving the police where relevant.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Scheme, the landlord should conduct a review of the key failures highlighted in this report. Within 8 weeks, the landlord should present this review to its senior leadership team and provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should focus on:
1. Understanding why the landlord was unable to demonstrate it had followed its ASB policy, specifically why actions under the policy were not implemented and any changes it needs to make to ensure it is able to effectively tackle reports of ASB when they are made.
2. Understanding why the landlord was unable to demonstrate the steps it had taken to ensure a multi-agency approach to dealing with the ASB case prior to it reaching the community trigger stage, and any changes it needs to make to ensure this approach is adopted, where relevant, in future cases.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the orders within the timescales set out above.