Cobalt Housing Limited (202006936)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006936

Cobalt Housing Limited

22 December 2021

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s Subject Access Request (SAR).
2. Allegations made against the resident and the landlord’s decision to terminate her tenancy.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or parts of a complaint, will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, and in accordance with the Scheme, the Ombudsman has determined that points (a) and (b) of the resident’s complaint fall outside of this service’s jurisdiction, and therefore will not be investigated.
In respect of complaint point (a), it is noted that this relates to the length of time taken by the landlord to produce data requested and alleged gaps in the information provided. While the Ombudsman appreciates that the information requested was to support the resident in proving her allegations of a poor service, the handling of the information and SAR is a matter which properly falls within the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
Under paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate matters which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. The Ombudsman has therefore determined that this falls outside of this service’s jurisdiction.
In respect of complaint point (b), the Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s decision to terminate the resident’s tenancy and its justification for seeking possession (which included of the counter-allegations) was properly considered by the courts. This is therefore not a matter that the Ombudsman will revisit within this report. As per paragraph 39(h) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate matters which are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings. This matter will thus only be mentioned for context.
The Ombudsman has therefore investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB); and
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident held an Assured Shorthold (starter) tenancy, which was agreed on 20 February 2020.
The resident has bipolar disorder.
The resident alleged that her neighbours on both sides of her property had engaged in several types of ASB. For the purpose of this report, they have been identified as neighbour A and neighbour B.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that on 13 August 2020 the landlord issued the resident with a notice requiring possession of the property, with the intention of bringing her tenancy to an end on 24 November 2020. Within the notice, the landlord detailed 81 incidents, several of which it considered to be a breach of the tenancy agreement. The Ombudsman notes that an appeal hearing was held in early October 2020 and the landlord’s decision was upheld. An interim injunction was also approved towards the end of August 2020, which ran simultaneously alongside the notice for possession.

Scope

Upon reviewing the evidence provided, the Ombudsman has noted the resident’s assertions that she continued to experience ASB after the landlord’s final response but still received a sub-standard service. This report, however, will only consider the landlord’s handling of matters up until it set out its final position in October 2020. This investigation relates solely to the landlord’s handling of matters up until the resident exhausted its process and brought her complaint to this service. The Ombudsman observes, nonetheless, that there is a separate case open with this service, under reference 202103388.
Moreover, the Ombudsman has also seen that the resident complained about the landlord’s management of her Housing Options application. The Ombudsman has determined, however, that this complaint will not be investigated or commented on within this report, as the Ombudsman notes that this too is already being assessed (along with the resident’s allegations of a data breach) under case reference 202103388. As these matters were complained about separately, were responded to under a separate complaints process, and were raised after the landlord had provided its final response in October 2020, it is appropriate for them to be considered under a separate reference.

Summary of events

On 9 June 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that neighbour A had been rude to her. She also alleged that dogs from several of the neighbouring properties had been causing noise nuisance. The landlord’s notes suggest that no action could be taken, however, as witnesses had reported and filmed the resident on several occasions goading the dogs by banging, leaning over the fence, and feeding them.
The landlord’s record suggests that as there was no specific detail given for the altercation with neighbour A (e.g., times), this matter could not be investigated either. It had added the resident to its files however, as both a complainant and an offender, and an action plan had been shared. The action plan introduced the staff member who was the contact person for ASB complaints and that she would speak with neighbours, investigate the Resident’s allegations, and the Resident might log her complaints “… via what’s app, text or call …”.
In another report on the same day, the resident reported that neighbour A and B had breached covid regulations as people were sitting in cars outside their homes / standing in the doorway smoking cannabis. It was also suggested that neighbours A and B had thrown drugs to each other over the resident’s back garden. According to the landlord’s records, this was put to both neighbours and the allegations were denied. The landlord spoke to witnesses but found no evidence to substantiate the resident’s allegations. It therefore suspected this to be false. Both neighbours were issued with verbal and written warnings however, after admitting to speaking over the fence.
The landlord on 9 June 2020 devised an ‘action plan’, (later updated on 2 October 2020 as a ‘communication’ plan).
Between 11 and 30 June 2020, the resident made a series of further reports. These included:
1. A report that a neighbour on the adjoining road was having parties until early hours of the morning on 15 June 2020. The landlord noted that this was not investigated as the resident reported that this had been resolved. The resident was provided with the noise app on the same day, however.
2. Several reports of drug deals (11,16,17, and 18 June 2020). The resident advised that one of these instances had taken place in the presence of a witness. When asked, however, the witnessed asserted that no drug deal had occurred. It was noted that this was a malicious allegation, and no evidence or logs were provided.
3. Allegations that neighbour A’s dog was causing noise nuisance. This was met with counter allegations that she had been goading the dogs and that this was staged / premeditated.
4. Allegations that her wheelie bin had been stolen by her neighbour several months earlier. The landlord noted that this had already been investigated and no further action taken at this time. The resident also reported fly tipping. The Neighbourhood Officer (NHO) subsequently wrote to all residents concerning this, as there was no evidence of who was responsible.
5. An alleged assault, on 25 June 2020. The landlord noted that as this had been reported to the police and was being investigated, it did not get involved until the matter was resolved. Its record shows that it had logged the issues against both neighbours, and that the police concluded that no further action was required. The police had also reported hearing the resident being abusive to the neighbours on the phone.
6. A report of racism on 29 June 2020, however there were no details of the offence or who the perpetrator was.
7. A report that neighbour B often slammed doors and shouted between the hours of 7am to 7pm. The landlord noted that no specific details were given and so no action was taken.
8. A report, on 30 June 2020, that on 24 June 2020 her neighbours exchanged cigarettes outside her home and proceeded to have a conversation whilst looking through her window. She found this to be intrusive. The landlord noted that despite the resident having CCTV, no video evidence was provided.
9. A report, on 30 June 2020, that on 2 June 2020 her neighbours had hidden drugs in her garden and asked her to retrieve this. The landlord noted that this was put to the resident’s neighbours and denied. The landlord deemed this to be another malicious allegation.
10. A letter dated 29 June 2020 indicates that the Landlord proposed that the Resident sign what was effectively an anti-social behaviour contract in respect of her own behaviour.
In a separate conversation on 30 June 2020, the landlord spoke to the resident in relation to the alleged ASB. The resident expressed that she had been treated unfairly by the landlord and wished to raise a complaint about this. She also explained that she suffered with bipolar disorder and so found it difficult to process information verbally. She requested a write up of matters discussed to enable her to consider the information and reply.
On 5 July 2020 the landlord noted the resident’s report that a party had taken place on the adjoining road causing noise nuisance in the early hours of the morning. Evidence of this was provided however it noted that as this was a one off, and constant noise was needed for enforcement action, no action was taken.
The resident also reported that neighbour A had been undertaking late night DIY. The landlord noted this, but no action was taken.
On 9 August 2020 the resident reported that neighbour B’s boyfriend had sung the “Banana Boat” song which she believed to be a hate crime. This was reported to the police.
The Ombudsman can see that the resident was interviewed by the police and that no further action was taken at this time. The landlord explained that the accusations were also put to the neighbours, however they denied any knowledge of this.
The resident was issued notice requiring possession on 13 August 2020. She was given the opportunity to appeal this decision by 4 September 2020.
On 30 August 2020 the resident reported to the police that two males had followed her and attempted to get into her car on the previous evening. She believed that these individuals were associated with neighbour B. The Ombudsman notes that the police spoke to the resident at length on 2 September 2020. The resident was advised that she needed to make her reports at the time of the incident, and not retrospectively, if she wished for them to be investigated. The landlord noted that both neighbours reported no knowledge of the event, and CCTV showed that no one had left or attended the property.
Following a further report of drug dealing, the resident explained that her neighbours had confronted her on 17 August 2020. The landlord noted that it had spoken to witnesses/the resident and had logged the confrontation. A further report of drug dealing was made on 25 August 2020 however this could not be investigated as, according to the landlord, the resident had CCTV recordings and logs of this but would not share these.
On 2 September 2020 the resident reported that neighbour A shouted at her for recording his dog and tried to lead her into an argument. Neighbour A had also laughed at her on her day of court on 27 August 2020. The landlord noted that it logged this, and it was put to the neighbour, along with accusations of neighbour A taking pictures of the resident emptying her bin. Neighbour A reported no knowledge of this.
The Ombudsman has also noted for context that the resident submitted an appeal request on 2 September 2020, to challenge the landlord’s decision to seek possession.
On 8 September 2020 the resident reported that a neighbour who had not previously been complained about had been monitoring her. She stated that this was a form of harassment.
On the same day, within a WhatsApp conversation, the resident informed the landlord that the allegations against her were “nonsense”. She stated that she was also distressed from being called derogatory words. She subsequently wished to complain about this.
On 10 September 2020, as well as reporting the sound of dogs barking, the resident expressed dissatisfaction that neighbour A’s CCTV was pointing over her property. This was examined and found to partially cover the corner of the resident’s garden. Neighbour A was therefore asked to stop filming until this had been readjusted. A counter allegation was made about the resident’s cameras, however the resident stated that her cameras did not work.
On 22 September 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident in response to her request to raise a formal complaint. It advised the resident on how she could access its complaints policy and explained:
1. It would not have an appeal and a formal complaint about the same issue. The resident’s appeal hearing had been set and communicated to her. She could, however, log a complaint about matters not connected to the appeal.
2. It understood that the resident’s dissatisfaction related to ASB and its investigation. It noted that there had been a breach in her tenancy and that a notice requiring possession had been issued.
On 23 September 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. She noted, amongst other things, that she had reported several breaches, but her matters had been closed without any correspondence. She additionally had not been provided with copies of the policies and procedures for complaints, disability guidance and the appeals process.
On 24 September 2020 the landlord responded to the resident. It stated:
1. It had responded via email as the resident had indicated that this was better for her.
2. It had been agreed to set a date for the appeal so that the resident could present her dissatisfaction at the hearing. It was not able to comment on the ASB case.
3. As the dissatisfaction was about the handling of the resident’s ASB case, and that she did not feel that the notice should have been issued, it was not appropriate to open a complaint about the same matter. The landlord asserted that the appeal hearing would be the best place to discuss this.
4. It had signposted the resident to the complaints policy in its previous letter. There was no policy which dealt with disabilities other than the Equality and Diversity policy which it attached, and the resident had been issued with the appeals guidance.
A further ASB report was made by the resident on 29 September 2020. The resident asserted that neighbour A had maliciously reported a gas leak at her property with the intention of having her gas capped. Upon investigating this with the contractors, the landlord found that this was not the case. The call out had been genuine and no evidence of malicious intent was identified.
On 8 October 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident following emails from the resident which the Ombudsman has not seen. While addressing matters relating to the SAR made and the appeal hearing, the landlord also reiterated that if she wished to complain about the way in which her ASB case was handled, she needed to discuss this during the appeal.
On 9 October 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming that a complaint had been logged for her. The landlord acknowledged that the resident felt that her ASB case had been mishandled and not properly investigated, also asserting that it was biased and did not take into account the issues she had raised. The landlord noted that the resident felt she had raised her complaint before the notice requiring possession had been issued. It explained that the complaint had been passed to the Neighbourhood Manager who would provide an outcome within 10 working days.
On 16 October 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident with a complaint response. It noted:
1. An ASB case was opened in June 2020 in which allegations were made both by and against the resident.
2. The ASB officer assigned spoke to all parties involved and contacted other agencies such as the police, support agencies, community leaders and health care providers to gather information to support allegations on either side.
3. Upon reviewing the case file and speaking to the ASB officer / a Neighbourhood Manager, it could confirm that an ASB service was provided. The landlord noted that with some of the allegations, the reports could not be corroborated, and the supporting evidence was unavailable.
4. It did not believe that the case had been biased. Records show that it attempted to gather evidence fairly on both sides.
5. Due to the pandemic and staff working from home, the communication between the resident and the ASB officer was across several channels (WhatsApp, text, telephone, and email) and this impacted the standard of communication. The level of communication was also excessive, making it difficult to understand and keep up to date with. The ASB officer did arrange times to discuss the issues reported via message, however due to the number of messages, at times, important points may have been missed or misunderstood.
6. The resident had raised her dissatisfaction on 30 June 2020 and then by message on 8 September 2020. The landlord apologised that it did not raise this as a complaint, noting that this was amongst a number of other messages at this time. The landlord also acknowledged that it later advised the resident that she needed to discuss her dissatisfaction at the appeal hearing. It therefore accepted that it had failed to recognise the resident’s formal complaint. It stated that it was unable to establish whether this had any impact on her appeal but agreed that it should have been logged.
7. The landlord confirmed that it would be reviewing how complaints were logged in future ASB investigations and, as a gesture of goodwill, made an award of £30 compensation.
On 19 October 2020 the resident’s sister wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf (and also in support of her appeal). She stated:
1. She believed that the landlord had failed to support her sister, under the Housing regulations and Equality Act. There was a failure to make a reasonable adjustment in respect of the communication method, with communication sent via WhatsApp rather than via letter or email as requested. This was to help her process and retain information however this adjustment was not met.
2. She could not establish whether an ASB review had been carried out.
3. In respect of the effectiveness of the landlord’s response, she wished to know what responses and strategies were put in place and whether these were effective. She questioned how this could have been effective when her sister’s complaints had not been investigated in line with policy.
4. The frequency of her sister’s complaints and accuracy were not appropriately noted as her complaint was not pursued in line with housing protocols. She was subsequently not given an effective response.
5. Her sister felt victimised and while there were several allegations of her sister being anti-social, she had stated that she had been defending against unsavoury behaviour. She felt harassed, verbally, physically, and racially abused, and did not feel supported by the landlord.
6. The evidence showing that her sister had been assaulted had not been considered. She questioned whether this would be, and asserted that any ASB allegations against the resident be revisited to ensure she was treated fairly.
7. She expressed that more needed to be done to support residents with vulnerabilities.
On 27 October 2020 the landlord provided its final response. It stated:
1. It had acknowledged that a complaint had not been raised when the resident indicated that she was unhappy. Compensation had been offered for this.
2. It had spoken to the police, witnesses, health professionals, and members of the community to get a full picture of the reported ASB. It had also communicated with the resident via various different channels. Due to the level of contact however, it was impossible for any officer to reply to all of the resident’s contact. The investigating officer had also been changed at the resident’s request. The landlord did not believe that it had failed to provide an ASB service.
3. It had treated all allegations in the same way, based on evidence. Action had only been taken where ASB had been demonstrated. It had not discriminated against her because of her colour, age, or mental health. As the resident was on a starter tenancy, however, the process for addressing breaches was different. It noted that as well as investigating complaints made by and against her, it had also sought an opinion from medical practitioners.
The landlord therefore concluded that it would not uphold the resident’s complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).

It is disputed whether the landlord offered the resident an “ASB Service” following her reports of ASB. According to the resident, the landlord failed to fully address her neighbours’ breaches and while she was the victim of a hate crime, her reports were not taken seriously.
Under the landlord’s ASB policy, an ASB Service will be provided where prohibited behaviour has been identified, to ensure a “safe and secure home” for residents. Amongst other things, the policy prohibits:
Behaviour which is unreasonable, or which causes nuisance or annoyance to neighbours; harassment of any person on the grounds of race, colour, disability, or any other reason; and categorically identifies noise / neighbour / animal nuisance, hate crimes, and harassment / intimidation as ASB.
It was therefore reasonable for the resident to expect the landlord to investigate her reports as part of its ASB service, and to establish whether any further action was needed.
While the landlord’s policy is not specific on the action which makes up its ASB service, it does set out some of the preventative measures that it may take, and the range of tools available to it, to prevent ASB (although this is not an exhaustive list).
The Ombudsman recognises that ASB investigations, particularly where neighbours are in dispute, can be challenging due to differing accounts of the same event. Therefore, while there is an expectation for the landlord to attempt to accrue / seek evidence to corroborate a resident’s reports, and to take action where a breach is identified, the absence of evidence from the reporting party can also limit the action that a landlord can take.
Nonetheless, it was reasonable that in response to the resident’s reports of noise / dog nuisance, the landlord presented the resident’s neighbours with her allegations to understand what had happened. It was also appropriate that the landlord provided the resident with the noise app, to enable her to accrue evidence to support her claims.
However, the Ombudsman has not seen that the landlord was able to accrue much evidence and according to the landlord’s records, the resident had been found to be encouraging the dogs to bark (although this service has not seen evidence of this). There was therefore limited action that the landlord could reasonably take in respect of this.
In response to the resident’s reports of drug dealing and drug use, and in the absence of evidence from the resident, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the allegations, and sought witness accounts as well as raising the issues with the alleged perpetrators. This was appropriate. The Ombudsman notes that upon discussing the resident’s allegations with witnesses and other members of the community, the resident’s allegations were found to be false / malicious on one occasion.
In seeking to accrue evidence, and in ensuring that the resident’s reports were dealt with properly, it might have also been reasonable for the landlord to have encouraged the resident to report drug activity to the police (as advised in the ASB policy). Given the frequency of her drug related reports, this would have been appropriate. This also may have exposed any further allegations made maliciously.
In any case, the Ombudsman recognises that there was some liaison between the landlord and the police where incidences of assault and hate crimes had been reported. The landlord’s records show that it monitored the resident’s report of a hate crime via the police and took its steer from the police, before deciding to take no further action. This was not unfair. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord took a similar approach, following a reported assault on 25 June 2020 and an incident on 29 August 2020. The Ombudsman recognises that on both occasions, the landlord still discussed the matters with the resident’s neighbours, logged the allegations against them, and where available reviewed CCTV footage.
Where the resident reported that her neighbours had been congregating and therefore breached COVID-19 guidelines, the landlord’s notes suggest that it sought information from witnesses and the neighbours themselves, and both parties were issued with warnings. Furthermore, where fly tipping had been reported, the landlord wrote to all residents to address the matter (as the perpetrator was unknown). In the Ombudsman’s opinion, these were reasonable steps.
The Ombudsman has further acknowledged that where the resident expressed concerns about her neighbour’s CCTV pointing into her garden, the landlord spoke with her neighbour and ensured that this was turned off until such time that it could be repositioned. In addition, where the resident had suggested that her neighbour had maliciously reported a gas leak with the intention of having her gas capped, the landlord followed this up and contacted the appropriate parties to establish that this was not the case. It is therefore clear to the Ombudsman that an ASB service was offered.
The Ombudsman does note, however, that the landlord could have done more to support the resident and to offer a less disjointed approach. The landlord indicates that an ‘action plan’ was put together upon opening an ASB case for the resident. However, it is unclear the extent to which this action plan was reviewed or revisited, however, this in itself does not amount to a service failure.
The landlord confirmed, in its stage one response, that it had opened an ASB case in June 2020. While the Landlord does appear to have carried out a reasonable and proportionate investigation into most (if not all), of the Resident’s numerous allegations, the Ombudsman notes the landlord could have given further advice on how to accrue evidence.
It must be said however, that whilst the landlord was taking action, the Ombudsman has been unable to see that the landlord communicated the actions it had (or had not) taken in response to the resident’s reports, or raised any of the issues limiting its response prior to its stage one reply. Adding to this, where the resident alleged that her ASB reports were being mishandled, this was dismissed until the landlord recognised her complaint in October 2020. The landlord therefore failed to offer the resident any assurance that her reports had been taken seriously and this did amount to service failure, given the lack of communication. This is because it resulted in the resident not being aware that any action was being taken and her continued assertions went unheard.
The Ombudsman appreciates that during this time, the resident was also being investigated as a perpetrator of ASB. This, however, should not impact the service that the resident was entitled to. While the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of bias or that the resident was treated unfavourably, it does appear that the service received could have been better, in line with the lack of communication and updates to relay the action being taken. The Ombudsman has subsequently determined that there was a service failure.
Finally, in respect of the resident’s request for a write up of events to assist her with processing information, it appears that the landlord did support the resident via the use of several channels and providing the resident with written summaries following telephone calls. This was reasonable. The landlord highlighted on 24 September 2020 that it would continue to respond via email as the resident had advised that this was her preferred method. This was not challenged. But the fact remains that there were failings in the landlord’s communication of actions it was taking in relation to the ASB, such that the resident believed no action was and communicating steps being taken to resolve ASB is a key action in considering such complaints

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The Ombudsman notes that within the landlord’s stage one response, it recognised that it had overlooked two occasions in which the resident explicitly requested that a complaint be logged. It therefore made an offer of redress in recognition of this failure and for its incorrect advice. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was fair.
Still, the Ombudsman does note that there was a four-month delay in raising the resident’s complaint and therefore in allowing her to be heard. The resident raised her dissatisfaction with the handling of her ASB reports on many occasions, and in and amongst her discussions about her appeal hearing. Despite this, however, the landlord failed to raise her complaint, but instead advised her that this was a matter to be discussed at her hearing, even though she had logged her complaint before her notice had been issued.
The Ombudsman is unable to see that an earlier consideration of the resident’s complaint would have impacted the ongoing ASB case against her or the landlord’s decision to seek possession of the property. Nevertheless, acknowledgement of the resident’s concerns would have demonstrated the landlord’s commitment to a fair process. The Ombudsman has subsequently made a recommendation below.
The Ombudsman has also seen that while the landlord accepted the correspondence from the resident’s sister on behalf of the resident as an expression of further dissatisfaction, it did not respond to many of the points raised within this. The resident was subsequently left with several unanswered questions and no explanation of how the landlord had supported her case and condition. The Ombudsman has therefore commented on this too, within the recommendation section of this report.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 39(m) and (h) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman has determined that the following complaint points fall outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s Subject Access Request (SAR).
2. Allegations made against the resident and the landlord’s decision to terminate her tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the landlord made an offer of redress prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

While the landlord did offer an ASB service, its approach and liaison with the resident was very limited by reference to the formal correspondence it sent to the resident Moreover, the Ombudsman cannot see that the resident was given any written assurance that her case was being investigated or taken seriously despite her clear reservations. With little feedback on its intended actions and/or the reasons for its lack of action, the landlord was unable to manage the resident’s expectations, and this was inappropriate.
It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise that it had delayed in acknowledging the resident’s complaint. In the Ombudsman’s view, its offer of compensation was a satisfactory attempt to put things right.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

In recognition of the service failure the Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident £100.
The landlord should make the above payment within four weeks of receiving this report.
The landlord should amend its ASB policy so as to identify the tools that it would use such as ‘action plans’ and how these will be updated and communicated to residents who might make ASB complaints. The landlord should confirm to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks that this order is being dealt with.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure that where ASB has been reported, the reporting party is provided with the appropriate advice on how to accrue admissible evidence and the actions that the landlord will / will not take in the circumstance. This will allow the landlord to manage the resident’s expectation while also making it clear why a case may or may not progress.
Where complaints are concerned, the landlord should – as per the Complaint Handling Code available on this services website – address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. It is inappropriate to overlook issues highlighted by the resident.
The landlord should also ensure that where complaints are raised, these are logged and responded to at the earliest opportunity and within the timescales set out under the complaints policy.