Your Housing Group Limited (202214825)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214825

Your Housing Limited

24 July 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB);
2. Response to the resident’s various service charge concerns;
3. Complaint handling.
The Ombudsman also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the property’s leaseholder. The information seen suggests she acquired the lease in 2002 through right to buy. The lease began in 1988. The property is a 1 bedroom ground-floor flat in a low-rise block. The block is in a mixed estate with high and low rise blocks. The lease agreement shows the resident is obliged to contribute towards the landlord’s costs through annual service charges.
The landlord’s relevant ASB policy, effective March 2017, shows the landlord will work with communities to tackle ASB. It has various tools and powers to prevent ASB and it will monitor the progress of complaints. It will contact the reporting party at the earliest opportunity (ideally within 24 hours) and capture full details of the incident. A risk assessment will be completed and any support requirements will be discussed. The landlord has since updated its policy.
The landlord operates a 2 stage formal complaints procedure. Its applicable complaints policy, effective July 2020, shows it aimed to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aimed to respond within 15 working days. ASB complaints are only covered by the complaints policy if they concern the landlord’s case handling.
The resident is engaged in a long running dispute with the landlord over its service charges. She stopped paying them in 2019 due to various concerns which are broadly linked to the landlord’s estate management. She has said these concerns are largely unresolved and her arrears should be cleared as part of any complaint settlement.

Summary of events

In her Ombudsman complaint form, submitted in October 2022, the resident said she experienced serious ASB issues from a neighbour (neighbour A) for around 5 years from 2018. Her comments echoed information she gave to the landlord during her escalation request in August 2021. In its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted there was service failure in relation to its ASB case management. In its case evidence to the Ombudsman, it provided the resident’s ASB reports from May 2019 onwards.
The landlord’s initial screen shot shows the resident reported 2 similar ASB incidents on 31 May and 2 June 2019. They involved continuous noise disturbance from late in the evening until the early hours. The latter report was more detailed. It referenced a Pitbull type dog off the lead in the block. It alleged neighbour A was visiting a known drug dealer in another block.
The landlord told us it logged a corresponding ASB case on 12 June 2019 (around 8 working days after the initial incident). Around this time, there were similar reports from other block residents. Broadly, these (undated) reports referenced intimidating noise from parties associated with neighbour A, including foul language, a door being kicked, and the sound of a “vicious fight”.
Another screen shot suggests neighbour A was issued a verbal warning at the landlord’s office on 10 June 2019. The landlord’s brief note, dated mid-July 2019, did not capture any further information about this conversation. The landlord told us it closed its related ASB case on 7 August 2019. No information was seen to show the landlord’s closure rationale.
It was noted that, based on the relevant event dates, the landlord did not record the ASB incidents as they occurred. Further, there was a short delay before it took any action against neighbour A. At this point, there was no evidence the landlord signposted any impacted parties to relevant support services, including the police. This approach appeared inconsistent with the severity of the incidents.
The next (undated) ASB report was from around October 2019. It shows the resident reported further noise disruption from neighbour A and their associates. The report said neighbour A’s “intoxicated” visitors were leaving the block’s communal entry door open, slamming internal doors, waking other residents, and generally causing distress.
The landlord issued neighbour A a written tenancy warning on 8 October 2019. It referenced multiple similar incidents (to those described above) during September 2019. It said neighbour A’s behaviour, including leaving the block door open, needed to stop immediately. Further, additional reports would prompt the landlord to seek possession of their home. The landlord told us it logged and closed a second ASB case on 16 October 2019.
The landlord visited neighbour A on 29 November 2019. It discussed various issues including household waste and noise. Subsequently, it issued them a further written warning on 2 December 2019. The landlord confirmed its letter was a formal warning and neighbour A’s tenancy was now at risk.
On 2 February 2020 the resident made a further report about neighbour A. She said during a 2 week period there were incidents on 9 different nights. She referenced constant spitting in communal areas, drug deals involving parties on bikes and in cars, and an incident where an angry male tried to confront neighbour A. The landlord’s records show it attempted to visit neighbour A on 26 February 2020.
The landlord successfully visited neighbour A on 3 March 2020. The information seen suggests they broadly accepted the ASB reports as relayed by the landlord. It shows neighbour A’s home was found to be in an unacceptable condition and the electricity supply had been “illegally bypassed”. The landlord’s records show it discussed neighbour A during a meeting with the police on 5 March 2020. The notes said the police would carry out “routine visits” to neighbour A.
On 13 March 2020 the landlord’s local representative thanked the resident for reporting recent issues. They asked if she could evidence the disruption from neighbour A. They said they had not noticed a spitting issue during visits to the block. Further, drug dealing should be reported to the police on the phone numbers provided. The email wording shows they were responding to the resident’s report on 2 February 2020. The time delay suggests the landlord lacked up to date information when it visited neighbour A.
Neighbour A was involved in further incidents between 14 and 16 March 2020. Corresponding reports, from multiple block residents, referenced numerous concerns including: ongoing ASB issues for the last 18 months; alleged cuckooing; a shouted threat to kill, accompanied by an attempt at forced entry to the block; 15 males that threw stones at the block; children that were scared to return home from school; unpleasant smells from neighbour A’s home and aggression towards block residents.
The Ombudsman has seen a notice of seeking possession (NOSP) dated 17 March 2020. The landlord’s file notes suggest it was hand delivered to neighbour A on the same day. The notes said neighbour A was told further incidents would result in legal action against them. Nevertheless, the landlord’s records and correspondence, including a subsequent ASB diary, shows incidents continued in the same manner for several months.
In late March 2020 the landlord raised a safeguarding referral for neighbour A. Subsequently, on 22 April 2020, it asked the police to visit neighbour A. At this point, the landlord said neighbour A was still causing “low level ASB in and around the block”. A follow-up record from mid-May 2022 suggests the police complied with the landlord’s request for a visit.
On 12 June 2020 the resident made a further report of ASB. It concerned an individual from another block on the estate. She said her email included a recording that evidenced drug dealing. She confirmed she would share this footage with the police, and reiterated the situation was unfair to the block’s residents. She said the landlord must work with the police to take the necessary action.
The landlord wrote a legal letter to the named individual on the same day. It said they were banned from the resident’s block. Further, the police had been informed and the letter was served as a “final tenancy warning”. There was a significant gap in the evidence at this point.
On 19 May 2020 the landlord’s local representative relayed a recent report (from another resident) about cleaning standards within the block to its contracts leader. They said there had been another report and the contractor’s overall cleaning time was “unacceptable”. The leader replied the following day. They said the matter had been raised with the contractor and its operatives would be recalled.
The resident emailed the landlord’s complaints team on 23 May 2021. The subject heading was “Service charge complaint”. She said, over the last few years, she was increasingly concerned with the level of service charges. This was broadly on the basis they were disproportionate to the services the estate received. She said, despite working closely with its local representative, there had been no improvement in the landlord’s performance. Her main points were:
1. Since they largely related to a nearby tower block, the resident was unwilling to pay the charges in full. The landlord previously admitted, in writing, that the resident’s part of the estate did not receive the same funding or improvements.
2. Nevertheless, the landlord’s charges were typically between £600 and £800 a year. The resident was passionate about the estate and the situation was unfair. She was willing to come to an arrangement over the charges but the landlord should take its residents and the estate seriously.
3. For example, it should explain what measures would be taken to improve its services and the quality of its contractors. The landlord should contact the resident by email with its initial service charge proposal. The resident was happy to discuss matters afterwards.
4. The landlord was neglecting a once great estate and its local representative was inadequate. In general, residents felt complaining was a waste of time given the landlord’s attitude. On that basis, the resident was setting up a committee to represent them.
The landlord logged and acknowledged the resident’s complaint 4 working days later. Its complaint records show a response was due by 14 June 2021. The resident reported further cleaning issues on this date. Her email included supporting images of the contractor’s “appalling” service. The resident said its contract should be reviewed. Further, the landlord did not need to recall its operatives as the resident completed the cleaning with help from a neighbour.
Subsequently, the landlord’s regional leader contacted the resident to arrange a joint visit to the estate. This was to better understand her complaint. They said other residents could also join this meeting. A scheduled visit was later postponed when the resident contracted COVID-19. In internal correspondence on 17 June 2021, the landlord’s contract leader said it should conduct joint cleaning audits with the contractor.
The information seen suggests the meeting eventually took place on 2 July 2021. The Ombudsman has not seen a first-hand account of the meeting. The regional leader issued the landlord’s stage 1 response on 18 August 2021. This was around 33 working days after the meeting. Though the landlord apologised for the delay and acknowledged various issues, no clear outcome was provided and no compensation was offered. The main points were:
1. Following the visit, the landlord was looking to improve the estate’s damaged and outdated signage. It would appreciate the committee’s opinion on its designs. Its ground maintenance team had been tasked with resolving an unofficial entrance between fencing and bushes.
2. The landlord would write to residents about maintaining their planted areas. Its correspondence would confirm the landlord may be prompted to implement its own “remove and reclaim” programme. The landlord was investigating the possibility of restricting a cut-through.
3. The landlord was unable to install marked parking bays and a one-way system on cost grounds. Nearby gullies would be checked and cleared by the landlord’s contractor. The landlord would arrange to remove items left on an area of grass, and excessive moss near the garage would be treated.
4. Cannabis use was a difficult matter for the landlord to resolve. Nevertheless, it wanted to be proactive and work with residents. Incident diaries would help the landlord approach perpetrators on breach of tenancy grounds. Incidents should also be reported to the police.
5. The landlord was in the process of arranging a regular meeting with a local police officer. It was happy to raise any reported issues during these meetings. Similarly, the landlord’s regional leader was willing to attend the next residents committee meeting.
6. The landlord was sorry for any inconvenience caused. It wanted to assure the resident steps had been taken to learn from her experience. Since her concerns had been addressed, the landlord would close the complaint. The resident could still request a review.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 26 August 2021. She said a complaint could have been avoided if the landlord had acted on her related emails over the last 18 months. Further, since all the issues were ongoing, the landlord’s list of actions was not sufficient to resolve matters. In addition: important issues from the meeting were overlooked, the leader failed to respond to post-meeting correspondence, and their response did not address the resident’s core service charge complaint. The resident’s other key points were:
1. The landlord’s gardening contractor had promised the resident the grounds would “be looking like new” by the end of June. Whilst nothing had changed, the contractor had been awarded a new contract. The resident had even met one of the contractor’s managers.
2. One of the resident’s main concerns related to “wooded bars” above the communal doors. This was not addressed as part of the landlord’s response. Wooden panels were a fire hazard, they needed to be “scraped down and repainted”.
3. Other issues were overlooked. For example, residents wanted an existing planted area to be removed from a communal garden, there was no mention of rotting wooden windows in another block, and the leader failed to act on detailed reports of Cannabis use from another resident.
4. ASB from neighbour A had been ongoing for almost 4 years. The landlord’s local representative failed to recognise any recent issues and they were almost uncontactable. This matter should be dealt with, and it had a significant bearing on the resident’s attitude towards the landlord’s service charges.
5. The resident had asked the regional leader to comment on her service charge concerns several times. If they were not responsible for these matters, they should signpost the resident to the right person.
On 1 September 2021, the landlord asked its regional leader to issue a follow-up response at stage 1. This was broadly based on the resident’s comments about overlooked issues. The landlord’s records show the complaint was eventually escalated on 23 September 2021. They suggest the escalation occurred because the leader did not comply with the landlord’s request.
The landlord emailed the resident at stage 2 on 15 October 2021. It said, having investigated, the landlord felt her complaint should “remain on hold” until the agreed actions were complete. Its email included a list of completed actions. The landlord said it wanted to discuss the overlooked issues and the estate. The landlord’s records show the parties subsequently agreed a meeting in early November 2021.
On 18 October 2021 the resident reported noise nuisance from another neighbour (neighbour B). She said: their young children were running around in an “unruly manner”, the “intensity of the noise was beyond a joke”, and other residents were impacted. She asked the landlord to send a general noise letter to block residents. She said her sleep, mental health and general well-being were impacted by neighbour A over several years. Further, matters were not fully resolved. As a result, she would not tolerate a similar situation with neighbour B.
The landlord’s records show it spoke to neighbour B’s landlord (sub-let property) on 28 October 2021. Further, neighbour B’s landlord reported they asked neighbour B to speak to the neighbours and discipline their children if necessary. They said neighbour B’s home had carpets and new underlay. On the same day, a separate record confirmed one of the block’s residents had reported neighbour B to the local authority’s noise team. The information seen suggests the landlord closed its relevant ASB case in late November 2021.
The landlord’s records and correspondence show the following events occurred between 8 and 24 November 2021:
1. The resident reported the block’s floors were left “soaking and dangerous” by the cleaning contractor. Further, the contractor failed to sign an attendance sheet to confirm its visit. She said she completed the cleaning herself with help from other residents. Her email included supporting images and a video.
2. The resident reported further cleaning issues around a week later. She said no vacuuming, brushing, or wiping down had occurred during a recent visit. Further, the contractor’s performance was a “disgrace” and the landlord should raise a stage 1 complaint. Her comments were supported by another block resident.
3. The landlord’s internal correspondence said it recently met with the resident. Further, several issues were identified during the visit and the landlord was working on an action plan.
The resident updated the landlord on 13 December 2021. She said there were 3 piles of fly-tipped debris on the estate. Further, they needed to be removed before they attracted vermin. She asked the landlord to reinstate fake CCTV cameras as a deterrent. She reported its gardening contractor frequently ignored litter in the grounds. She said she would clear the litter herself and, given her complaint was still ongoing, the situation was unacceptable.
The landlord’s (undated) complaint records show the “expected resolution date” for the resident’s complaint was postponed on 2 occasions around January 2022. Corresponding notes said the resident had been updated and the landlord was still working on its action plan.
The landlord told us neighbour A moved away from the estate in mid-March 2022. In internal correspondence around 2 weeks later, it asked if there was any progress in relation to the resident’s complaint. The landlord said she owed around £1,600 and nothing had been paid for over a year. There was a further gap in the evidence at this point.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 16 June 2022. This was around 10 months after the resident’s escalation request. It was also around 7 months after the landlord began working on its action plan. Broadly, the response addressed the overall condition of the estate and a reported lack of investment. Despite the resident’s escalation comments, it did not reference the landlord’s service charges. The main points were:
1. Neighbour A had moved and the resident’s ASB case had been resolved. Given the time taken to resolve matters and the lack of actions by the staff involved, the landlord’s ASB handling fell below its required standards. There was also poor communication and delays responding to incidents.
2. Cleanliness around the estate was impacted by “deliberate misuse” from residents who had since moved away. There were also occasions when the landlord’s cleaning did not meet required standards. Cleaning and grounds maintenance would be closely monitored. The resident had met the landlord’s contracts leader, who was committed to maintaining standards.
3. The landlord removed old planters and replaced the estate’s signage as agreed. To improve the look of the estate, it would repaint/replace external wooden fascia boards during upcoming roof works. Scaffolding was already in place. A works order had been raised to repair a gap in the estate’s external fencing. This gap was unsightly and could be used to gain access.
4. There were frequent fly tipping incidents on the estate. The landlord was considering installing gates or CCTV. These solutions would involve a cost to residents. Still, they were likely better value than continually removing dumped waste, and would improve the estate’s appearance. The landlord would work with residents to explore solutions in the coming months.
5. After a fire in another home on the estate, the resident raised safety concerns about garages that may be overloaded or contain items that could cause health and safety issues. The landlord was liaising with the resident involved to manage any issues.
6. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord held several internal meetings. It wanted to improve its communication and deliver results. The resident had since confirmed its communication was better. The landlord accepted there were service failures related to its ASB handling and delays in completing the action plan.
7. The landlord recognised: the time taken to respond to the complaint, no issues were resolved at stage 1, and the resident spent considerable time in meetings and other communication with the landlord. It awarded her £400 in compensation comprising: £100 for service failures in its ASB case management, £100 for length of time, and £200 time and trouble.
The resident responded in detail on 11 July 2022. She said the landlord’s compensation award “was insulting”. This was based on the severity of its failures and their impact on her “welfare, property, health and life in general”. She also said many other block residents were impacted by the landlord’s attitude. Her main points were:
1. Neighbour A started to cause problems soon after they moved in. Though it received a large number of related complaints, the landlord failed to take any action and the ASB grew increasingly serious. Block residents began communicating with the landlord by email to ensure there was an audit trail.
2. In “4 years of hell”, the resident lost her job and her personal relationships suffered. She often felt unable to function having been kept awake all night. Friends did not want to visit the area or the resident’s block. The resident was anxious about entertaining guests. She became withdrawn and frightened.
3. Incidents included: drug dealing and use, violence, sexual activity in communal areas, frequent damage, and unwanted guests breaking into the block. The resident obtained a valuation to sell the property. She felt the situation arose from the landlord’s lack of support, action, and care.
4. The landlord’s offer of £100 for complaint handling delays was disproportionate. Whilst signage had been changed and “a few pots” were moved, the resident’s initial complaint was still unresolved after around 12 months.
5. Its time and effort award was also unfair. The resident spent considerable time gathering ASB evidence, which the landlord failed to act on. This process involved a significant risk to her safety. The landlord failed to properly apologise and it never checked on the welfare or safety of other block residents.
The landlord replied its complaints process was complete. It referred the resident to the Ombudsman in late July 2022. It subsequently acknowledged a subject access request (SAR) from the resident and confirmed it had placed her service charge collection on hold. Around a month later, the resident reported ASB relating to another neighbour (neighbour C).
The landlord’s records and correspondence show the following events occurred between 9 and 31 October 2022.
1. The resident shared notes from a residents’ committee meeting with the landlord (the Ombudsman has not seen these notes). The interaction suggests the parties were involved in regular engagement.
2. The next day, the landlord offered to introduce the resident to its gardening contractor’s new supervisor. It said the meeting could take place during an upcoming visit to the estate. Its email included some costings for “improvement areas”.
3. In late October the resident told the landlord she had not bothered to report any cleaning issues for around 8 weeks. This was on the basis her reports made no difference. She said recalling the contractor only improved standards temporarily. In addition, the landlord should change its contractor.
4. The landlord replied the same day. It said the resident’s concerns had again been raised at a senior level with the contractor. Further, it would update her in due course.
Following a significant gap in the evidence, the resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 14 December 2023. She said, since her complaint, there were many additional problems with the landlord. For example, ASB issues were currently ongoing with another resident. However, after she raised concerns with the landlord at a high-level, its approach had improved significantly over the last 4 months. Her other key points were:
1. The resident was in frequent contact with one of the landlord’s leaders about the estate. There were fortnightly meetings and regular walkabouts. The leader broadly agreed with the resident’s concerns.
2. Though the landlord’s recent engagement was encouraging, key issues remained unresolved. The resident would not resume paying service charges, or close her complaint, until they were.
3. The landlord declined to install entry gates on the basis they would cost around £20,000. Its service charge information showed it subsequently spent around £25,000 removing fly-tipped waste from the estate.
4. The landlord previously changed the way it presented its service charge information. Since the information was less clear, the resident felt it intended to hide information about specific charges.
5. The resident was previously charged for CCTV repairs/maintenance and a communal stairwell repair. The stairwell was located in another part of the estate and the resident’s block/area did not benefit from CCTV coverage.
6. Issues with the standard of the landlord’s cleaning and garden services were ongoing.
After this discussion, the Ombudsman sought to establish the relevant investigation timeline. We began by asking the landlord if it had previously sent us all of its relevant ASB records. In response, the landlord provided evidence that showed it received ASB reports about neighbour A from February 2018 onwards. It said none of the initial incidents were reported by the resident. Subsequently, we asked the resident for evidence to show she was impacted by the ASB in 2018. The resident provided multiple emails that confirmed:
1. The resident exchanged emails with the landlord’s local representative in early May 2018. She said she had written to them several times about ASB from neighbour A. In her detailed email, the resident said she felt unsafe and the situation could not continue.
2. The representative acknowledged the resident’s previous correspondence. They encouraged her to report any criminality to the police. They said they would visit neighbour A with the landlord’s legal officer to discuss several incidents. The exchange confirms the police were involved at this stage.
3. In May 2019, the representative asked the resident to keep an ASB incident diary. They said the landlord had “made it very clear” to neighbour A that they were not to cause any issues in the block
4. During an exchange between 24 and 25 October 2019, the resident reported being woken 7 times during the night by noise linked to neighbour A. She said the landlord should treat all of her subsequent emails about neighbour A as formal complaints. The representative replied they had forwarded her email to the landlord’s complaints department.
5. On 5 November 2019 the resident told the representative she had spent the last week in a hotel to escape the situation with neighbour A. She said she had been prescribed sleeping tablets and she was “(living) in fear of (her) door getting smashed in by drug dealers who want money off (neighbour A)”. The representative said they would visit neighbour A “and hope that he makes the reasonable changes going forwards”.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The timeline shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Further, 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. In other words, we cannot determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or loss of earnings.
It may help to explain that this assessment is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because, generally, landlords need to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any issues accordingly, prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement. Any issues the resident raised after the landlord’s final response, such as ASB involving neighbour C, should be raised with the landlord in the first instance. The resident can bring these concerns to the Ombudsman when they have completed the landlord’s complaints process.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

The timeline points to serious ASB issues over a prolonged period relating to neighbour A. The landlord accepted its ASB handling fell below required standards. Further, there was a lack of action by its relevant staff members, poor communication, and delays responding to incidents. The timeline supports these conclusions. The landlord awarded the resident £100 in compensation to put things right. Its approach to compensation and calculations will be considered further in the below assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling.
The timeline shows inappropriate record keeping and case progression hampered the landlord’s response to the reported ASB. For example, the landlord’s written warning on 8 October 2019 said additional reports would prompt it to seek possession of neighbour A’s home. Soon afterwards, on 2 December 2019, the landlord issued a similar letter which failed to follow up on its previous warning. This pattern was repeated following the landlord’s NOSP in March 2020.
The above identified failures were based on the landlord’s own case evidence to the Ombudsman. This evidence confirmed the landlord was responsible for significant ASB handling failures from May 2019 onwards. For example, at this point, the timeline shows it took the landlord 8 working days to log an ASB case. This appears contrary to the timescales given in its relevant ASB policy. However, the resident’s email evidence supports her assertion that the above identified pattern of failure extended back to around February 2018.
The landlord has explained that this was a complex case due to neighbour A’s circumstances and it has evidenced that it took various measures to address the reports about neighbour A including multi agency partnerships since the reports were initially received in 2018. It has further evidenced that legal intervention was taken against perpetrators of the ASB between 2018 to 2021. Though this was not actions specifically against neighbour A, it was addressing the root cause of the ASB issues reported by addressing the perpetrators of the ASB associated with neighbour A.
With regards to the incident which took place on 31 May 2019, the resident reported this on 3 June 2019 and the landlord provided a verbal warning to neighbour A on 10 June 2019, therefore this was within five working days from the date of the report. I have updated the investigation report to reflect this.
It has also demonstrated that following the actions of the police, the landlord attended to the matter within 2 working days. However, this does not take away from the fact that the resident’s reports, that were made on 2 February 2020 regarding 9 separate incidents were not clearly referenced in the visit given their frequency.
The landlord has further explained that due to changes in legislation during the Covid-19 pandemic, it was unable to follow through on the final warning notice issued in June 2020. A decision was made to issue a further final tenancy warning rather than issuing a possession claim to court.
The evidence shows the correct ASB timeline runs from around February 2018 to mid-March 2022. Further, there was a severe impact to the resident during this period of around 49 months (over 4 years). For example, she told the landlord she felt unsafe in May 2019. Over 12 months later, in November 2019, she reported spending time in a hotel to escape the impact of the ASB associated with neighbour A. Her reply to the landlord’s stage 2 response, in July 2022, referenced further impacts. Overall, the evidence suggests the resident was unable to fully enjoy the property.
It is accepted the landlord was not directly responsible for neighbour A’s behaviour. Nevertheless, its relevant ASB policy shows the landlord had various tools and powers to prevent ASB, and it would monitor the progress of complaints. The timeline confirms it failed to use them appropriately and its monitoring was inadequate. On that basis, the landlord was partly responsible for the overall duration of the ASB and it could have reduced the timeline. Given the circumstances, its offer of £100 in compensation was highly disproportionate.
After considering the landlord’s review request alongside the evidence it has provided, the Ombudsman has found that it did take proactive actions to try to address the resident’s reports of ASB alongside the reports made by other residents. It should be noted that as neighbour A is a resident of the landlord, it has a responsibility to consider his own personal circumstances when deciding upon what enforcement actions should be taken, and this can impact what the landlord is within its remits to do. I have therefore amended the investigation report to reflect this. However, it still does not take away from the fact that it took four years to end neighbour A’s tenancy despite the persistent reports of ASB associated with his tenancy in the property.
The landlord has also not demonstrated how the resident was kept up to date with the actions it had taken. Whilst it was reasonable to not disclose the exact actions, assurances should have been communicated in a timely manner to the resident that it was dealing with the matter and taking the relevant legal actions to manage the situation. Furthermore, there has been no evidence that a risk assessment was done on the resident following the serious reports of ASB to ensure that it was considering the impact the situation was having on her. Although the landlord admitted to its failings regarding the ASB, the amount of compensation of £100 was insufficient on the basis that the resident continued to experience the inconvenience and distress of living with this situation for around 49 months. This meant that she was unable to experience quiet enjoyment of her home in line with her tenancy agreement. Therefore, after considering the evidence provided, I have found maladministration in regards to landlord’s handling of ASB to maladministration and find that the compensation of £50 per month is reasonable based on the duration of her experience.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s various service charge concerns

It may help to explain that the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable. This includes complaints about the level of a service charge increase. Concerns of this type are better suited to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), which can decide these matters. We can consider the landlord’s administration of service charges. This includes its response to the resident’s complaint, and its provision of the services charged.
In this case, we have not seen sufficient information to make a full/fair assessment in relation to this complaint point. This is broadly because the landlord failed to engage directly with the resident’s concerns during the timeline. For example, her May 2021 complaint disputed the landlord’s service charges on the basis they largely related to a nearby block. Her December 2023 update to the Ombudsman suggests she has specific concerns about stairwell and CCTV repair costs. None of these issues were mentioned in the landlord’s complaint responses.
It is recognised the landlord’s lack of engagement with the resident’s core complaint points was unacceptable. Nevertheless, this was a procedural failure related to the landlord’s complaint handling. As a result, this failure will be considered further in the relevant section below. Ultimately, since we are unable to speak for the landlord, we need it to respond to the resident’s specific concerns. For example, its response should explain what the relevant stair and CCTV charges were. It should also confirm if the landlord issued any service charge refunds in relation to reported cleaning/maintenance issues.
Her recent update to the Ombudsman suggests the resident has new concerns about the landlord’s service charges. Specifically, she told us the landlord had changed the way it presented its service charge data and the information was less transparent. Again, without understanding the landlord’s position, the Ombudsman is unable to consider this point. Given the above, based on our complaint handling findings, the Ombudsman will order the landlord to raise a new complaint to fully address the resident’s service charge concerns.
From the information seen, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point. This finding was based on our inability to make a full and fair assessment from the information available. In other words, from the information seen, there was no evidence to support a related failure on the landlord’s part.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The timeline points to significant issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. Primarily, though they were raised in the resident’s original complaint and subsequent escalation request, the landlord failed to respond to her core service charge concerns at either stage of its complaints procedure. This was unfair, inappropriate and contrary to the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), as published in July 2020. Section 3.14 of the Code said, “Landlord’s shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions…”.
Based on the timing of this assessment, the evidence shows the resident’s key concerns remain unaddressed around 31 months after her initial complaint. The information seen suggests the landlord adopted a relaxed approach towards her outstanding service charges. In other words, no information was seen to show it made special efforts to pursue the resident for payment. Regardless, it is reasonable to conclude she was aware of the accumulating arrears. Further, while the dispute is ongoing, the arrears are likely a source of anxiety for the resident.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted there were delays and failures in relation to its complaint handling. The response wording shows it awarded the resident a total of £300 in related compensation. The evidence suggests this was reasonable given the circumstances. For example, the timeline points to around 12 months of total delays and several meetings with the resident at the estate. Nevertheless, the landlord’s failure to directly address the resident’s core service charge concerns confirms its compensation was not sufficient to put things right.
It was noted the landlord’s ASB compensation was disproportionate given the circumstances. Though the landlord identified a range of ASB related failures, the wording of its stage 2 response suggests it made little attempt to identify the overall ASB timeline, quantify any case handling delays, or consider the resulting impact to the resident. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord could have reached a proportionate figure by considering these matters in detail. Providing a supporting rationale would have helped the landlord develop its approach.
The landlord should ensure its complaint handlers can identify and respond to all complaint issues accordingly. It should also ensure they can confidently: identify the relevant timeline, measure delays, and weigh impacts with a view to awarding proportionate compensation. This approach will enable the landlord to fairly resolve more complaints through its own internal complaints procedure. It will also reduce the number of adverse Ombudsman findings related to the landlord’s complaint handling.
It was also noted there was no information to show the landlord raised a formal complaint in line with its representative’s email in late October 2019. Overall, the evidence shows there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s record keeping

The timeline shows there were also significant issues with the landlord’s record keeping. For example, the landlord’s response to the Ombudsman’s December 2023 information request shows it was not aware the resident had raised ASB concerns about neighbour A in 2018. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s failure to keep appropriate records at this point hampered its later efforts to identify the complaint timeline. More recently, the evidence confirms the landlord failed to record ASB incidents promptly on a number of occasions.
For example, the timeline suggests its March 2020 visit to neighbour A did not reflect the various issues referenced in the resident’s previous report on 2 February 2020. At this point, the resident mentioned serious issues including incidents over 9 separate nights and attempted forced entry to the block. It is reasonable to conclude the nature and frequency of these incidents could have impacted the landlord’s decision making at this time. For example, with up to date information, the landlord may have opted for tougher sanctions against neighbour A.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repairs, reports, responses and investigations. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that a landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors or managing agents.
Overall, the timeline points to multiple incidents of inappropriate record keeping. It shows they impacted the landlord, the resident, and the Ombudsman. Given the circumstances, there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response the resident’s various service charge concerns.
3. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
4. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The timeline shows there were multiple serious ASB handling failures over a period of around 49 months. Broadly, the landlord failed to use its available tools to keep the resident updated with its actions regarding neighbour A and consider the length of time the resident had to live with the ASB. The landlord’s approach was contrary to its ASB policy and its compensation was highly disproportionate. The resident was severely impacted over a prolonged period.
In relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s various service charge concerns, the Ombudsman’s no maladministration finding was based on our inability to make a full and fair assessment from the information available. In other words, from the information seen, there was no evidence to support a related failure on the landlord’s part. Our complaint handling orders will address this issue.
Though they were raised in her original complaint and subsequent escalation request, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s core service charge concerns at either stage of its complaints procedure. This was unfair, inappropriate and contrary to the Code. Based on the timing of this assessment, these concerns remain unaddressed around 31 months later. The landlord’s complaint handling compensation failed to reflect this failure.
The evidence confirms there were multiple incidents of inappropriate record keeping during the timeline. It shows they impacted the landlord, the resident, and the Ombudsman. Given the circumstances, there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders a relevant member of the landlord’s executive team to apologise to the resident for the key failures identified in this report. The apology should recognise the prolonged impact of the landlord’s inappropriate ASB handling on the resident. It should also acknowledge the landlord failed to address her core service charge concerns. The landlord should share a copy of its letter/call summary with Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £3,050 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £2,500 to address any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s above identified ASB handling failures.
2. £150 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s above identified complaint handling failures.
3. £400 which the landlord awarded at stage 2 in July 2022. The landlord is free to deduct any amount it has already paid from this figure.
The landlord to raise a new complaint to address the resident’s service charge concerns. It must allocate the complaint to a service charge specialist, who should: ensure the resident was only charged for services her block received, consider whether any service charge refunds are due for missed appointments, consider any related inconvenience to the resident (such as time spent cleaning, and consider her subsequent transparency concerns. The landlord should share its new complaint reference with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The appointed executive to review the ASB, complaint handling and record keeping issues highlighted in this report. Within 8 weeks, the landlord should provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. This is with a view to preventing similar issues from reoccurring. The landlord’s review should include: its failure to comply with its ASB policy, its failure to respond to core complaint issues, its disproportionate redress and its record keeping practices. Identified improvements should be cascaded to relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with most of the above orders within 4 weeks. The review order has an 8 week deadline.