Optivo (202103609)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103609

Optivo

30 January 2023

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 response to the resident’s:
1. concerns regarding the service charges applied to the account for water charges;
2. report of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a lease which commenced on 10 November 2009. The resident is a shared owner of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association.
The property is described as a two-bedroom first floor flat.
The landlord’s lease obliges the landlord to determine at the end of each account year, …whether the estimate provided for service charges has exceeded or failed to meet the actual expenditure.
The lease obliges the leaseholder not to cause or permit harassment or abuse of the owner’s lessees, occupiers of neighbouring premises… on the ground of race, ethnic or national origin. The leaseholder is responsible for ensuring that no breach of the covenant is committed by any member of the leaseholder’s household or visitors.
The landlord’s recoverable service charge policy states that it will give clear information about the services that residents pay for and allow residents to check the cost of the services against what has been charged. In addition, it will refund any overpayment.
The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as “conduct that has caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises. Or conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person”.
The policy gives examples of the type of behaviour It considers to be anti- social. Following a report of ASB, it will provide support, investigate the ASB, undertake a risk assessment agree an action plan with the resident. In addition, it will work with its partners, keep the resident informed and contact the resident before the case is closed.
The landlord’s complaints procedure has two stages. It states that it will respond within 10 working days at the first stage of the complaints procedure. The resident has to request a review within ten working days and the landlord has to formally agree before moving to the review stage. If it decides not to escalate the complaint, it must give reasons.
The landlord’s compensation procedure sets out the amount payable for service failure including payments for distress, time, trouble or inconvenience.
The resident’s partner has made the complaint to this Service. Any contact from the resident’s partner will be referred to as being from the “the resident” in this report. The resident’s complaint concerns a neighbour who is the alleged perpetuator of the ASB. This Service has not been provided with a copy of neighbour A’s tenancy agreement with the landlord which sets out her responsibilities under the tenancy agreement.

Summary of events

The resident sent to the landlord ASB incident diaries in May 2020 and June 2020. The diaries contained a single entry for May 2020 and six reports in June 2020 regarding cannabis use by Neighbour A. The resident reported that she smelt cannabis when taking the rubbish out, in the communal hallway and whilst sitting in the garden. The resident also informed the landlord that she had smelt cannabis coming from Neighbour A’s property and that all incidents had been reported to the police.
The police communicated with the landlord on 24 June 2020 regarding the reports of cannabis use from Neighbour A. The police advised that a Community Protection Warning letter had been issued to Neighbour A and the landlord requested a copy. The submission from the landlord does not include a copy of the warning letter.
On 31 June 2020, the resident submitted an incident diary to the landlord advising of a BBQ that had taken in the communal garden on 18 June 2020. The resident advised that cannabis had been smoked by Neighbour A and her guests, that there were witnesses to the incident and a report had been made to the police. Furthermore, the cannabis smoke had affected her son’s breathing and she had felt intimidated by the number of people who had attended the BBQ.
The landlord’s records show that on 16 July 2020 it wrote to the resident to advise her to complete and return the diary sheets, agreed to provide weekly updates regarding the ASB investigation and to carry out a survey of residents regarding the reported ASB.
The landlord wrote to Neighbour A on 24 July 2020, following its visit on 20 July 2020. It noted that Neighbour A had disputed the use of cannabis by her and her visitors and it reminded her of the responsibilities under the tenancy agreement.
On 3 August 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to support the ASB report made by another neighbour to the landlord regarding the conduct of Neighbour A’s dog and to report that Neighbour A had not disposed of her rubbish correctly. In addition, she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision to send a written reminder to all residents of the building regarding the disposal of rubbish rather than writing specifically to Neighbour A. The resident requested as a resolution that the landlord install cameras in the back garden and to the front door to the building to resolve the drug use and the number of people entering and leaving Neighbour A property.
The landlord contacted the resident on 3 August 2020 regarding the counter allegations it had received from Neighbour A. It advised the resident that it did not have evidence to support the allegations regarding the ASB report that it had received. In response on the same day (3 August 2020), the resident informed the landlord that the content of his email implied, she had harassed Neighbour A when she tried to avoid contact with her. She requested for her concerns to be addressed by a more senior member of staff and that she would contact the police regarding her request for cameras to be installed to resolve the use of cannabis in the building.
The landlord’s records show that it had an ASB review meeting on 7 August 2020. It noted Neighbour A report that the resident disliked her because of her background, that the resident had complained that Neighbour A’s partner had fly tipped in the communal bin area and had caused damage to the communal spaces. The ASB action plan recorded that:
1. The resident should not have contact with Neighbour A.
2. It agreed an action plan with Neighbour A.
3. The police had advised that as a result of a lack of evidence, it was not taking any action.
The landlord called the resident on 13 August 2020 and 14 August 2020. It left voice messages on both occasions to advise of its intention to close the ASB complaint.
The police provided updates to the landlord on 19 August 2020 and 27 August 2020 which advised that it had dealt with the reports of cannabis use. Also, it intended to monitor the situation and that there wasn’t any further action it could take.
The landlord’s records show that it held an ASB review meeting on 26 August 2020, 10 September 2020 and 22 September 2020. It noted that it had not received any further reports of ASB from the resident and that it did not have sufficient evidence to support the allegations of ASB regarding Neighbour A. It decided to get a further update from the police regarding the reports of the smell of cannabis to assess what action it could take.
The landlord received a single response to the ASB survey that it conducted on 7 September 2020. The respondent requested anonymity and advised that there were at least 4 adults living in Neighbour A property and that food and dog excrement had been placed in the recycling bins.
The Housing Officer emailed the resident following his call on 22 September 2020. The Housing Officer updated the resident regarding the next steps – an update would be obtained from the police regarding the reports of cannabis use by Neighbour A. It advised that if it did not receive evidence of cannabis use by Neighbour A, from the police or from the resident the ASB case would be closed.
On 30 October 2020, the resident reported an incident involving verbal abuse by Neighbour A that had occurred at the supermarket. In response, the landlord informed the resident, the same day (30 October 2020) that she should report the incident to the police. The landlords internal records note on 6 November 2020 that as the incident had occurred in the supermarket, which was located around one quarter of a mile away from the property. The landlord concluded that it considered it a police matter.
The resident made four reports to the landlord on 11 December 2020, 14 December 2020, 15 December 2020 and 17 December 2020 regarding the inadequate disposal of refuse at the property by Neighbour A. The resident provided pictures of the bin area, showing spilled refuse and dumped items such as bed and animal hutch and requested that the landlord take specific action against Neighbour A. The landlord advised that it had taken the appropriate action by writing to all members of the building and had contacted the local authority regarding the timing of its refuse collection. It also advised that it had decided not to install CCTV at the block due to the privacy concerns and the costs which would be payable by all residents.
The police provided updates to the landlord in December 2020 that it was dealing with the ASB and that mediation had been offered to all parties and refused.
The resident made two complaints to the landlord on 30 December 2020. The first complaint related to the ASB and the second concerned the water charges to the property. The resident complained that:
1. She had experienced verbal abuse and threatening behaviour from Neighbour A. She had informed the landlord and the police and a resolution to the ASB had not been found.
2. The ASB complaint had been closed, despite the police receiving other complaints regarding the cannabis use by Neighbour A.
3. She was disappointed with the content of the communication from the ASB officer as she had found it condescending.
4. The landlord had not dealt with Neighbour A’s failure to dispose of bulky waste correctly, instead it had sent a general letter to all residents.
5. The landlord’s request that she evidence her concerns by taking pictures of Neighbour A was unreasonable as that could jeopardise her safety. Furthermore, her son was scared to access the communal areas on his own having witnessed the aggressive and abusive behaviour from Neighbour A towards his mother.
6. The landlord had not responded to her communication regarding the water charges to the property.
7. The landlord had not complied with Ofwat’s guide to the water resale code of practice and that there was a lack of clarity in the communication provided by the landlord’s staff.
8. The resident questioned why the service charge water bills had increased since 2017.
9. The landlord had sent bills for water charges when it had not received a bill.
The resident resent the complaint to the landlord on 14 January 2021 when she did not receive a response to the complaint. The resident included a letter dated 11 January 2021 from her son’s school stating that he had reported that the people in the flat below were “smoking weed “and that her son’s teacher had told her the situation was affecting his well-being. Furthermore, she had followed the landlord’s advice – kept incident diaries, contacted the police and avoided Neighbour A and the situation remained unchanged.
The landlord spoke to the resident and sent an acknowledgement to the complaint on 18 January 2021 and advised that a response would be provided on 29 January 2021. It also provided the landlord’s complaint resolution policy and its putting it right leaflet.
The landlord contacted the resident on 21 January 2021 and on 5 February 2021 to request an extension to the complaint. It advised that it would respond by 12 February 2021.
The landlord responded to the complaint at the first stage of the complaint procedure on 12 February 2021. The key findings were:
1. It had been unable to source a contractor to calibrate the water meters. If it was able to do so, this would attract a charge which would increase the service charge.
2. Confirmed that it receives a single bill for the water charges and that the water usage charge is divided between the properties.
3. Intended to install individual meters into each property, resulting in the bills being based on individual usage. An update would be provided on 1 March 2021 regarding this.
4. Supplied copies of the water bills from 5 July 2017 to 2 January 2020 and confirmed that the bills were received during the financial year 2019 to 2020.
5. Explained that amounts billed for the financial year 2019 and 2020, was the difference between the estimated water charge and the actual water charge.
6. Recognised that it should have made it clearer that the initial water service charges were not based on actual usage until the bills were received and apologised for that.
7. Confirmed that the water meter was read every six months. However, it could not explain the period that there had been non-billing of the water charges.
8. Confirmed that there was not a leak on the water supply and apologised that the resident had received higher than anticipated water charges.
9. Confirmed that without evidence it could not take any further action regarding the ASB; the police were not taking action regarding the ASB and that it had not received any police reports since last year.
10. Confirmed that it had received two images of an individual at the bin door and at the front door and had been unable to identify the individual.
11. Advised that it was willing to review any additional information and would use that to recharge any costs for refuse disposal as appropriate.
12. Suggested mediation as a solution to the reported ASB and would arrange this if the resident agreed to pursue this.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response and wrote to the landlord on 17 February 2021 advising that it had not addressed the issues that she raised. The resident informed the landlord that it had:
1. Failed to address that it had broken Ofwat regulations for the resale of water.
2. Delayed in reading the water meters and providing correct bills for the past three years.
3. Received higher than normal water charges and the landlord had not provided an adequate explanation for this.
4. Been informed that reports had been made to the police on 5 February 2021 and 16 February 2021 regarding the smell of cannabis in the communal area.
5. Evidence of a possible occupant at Neighbour’s A property shouting abuse and damaging the front door. Therefore, it was surprising that the landlord was unable to identify the occupant.
6. Evidence of Neighbour A and her family dumping rubbish. Hence the request for CCTV to be installed in the communal garden, bin shed and communal hallway, which should resolve the issues.
7. Given reasons why she believed mediation with Neighbour A would not be effective.
On 4 March 2021, the landlord contacted the police after receiving an ASB report from the resident of an incident where she had been accused of using a jet wash to spray water at Neighbour A. The resident advised that at the time she was trying to avoid being hit by a car driven by the friend of Neighbour A. In addition, the resident accused Neighbour A of verbal abuse. The landlord requested that the police provide an update.
The landlord provided its update to the resident regarding the water usage on 5 March 2021 apologising for the delay in its response. It advised that the water company had attended and had proposed two options: update the current system or change the meters. It intended to follow up with the water supplier and would provide a further update.
On the same day 5 March 2021, the police notified the landlord that it had attended the incident on 28 February 2021 and that both parties to the incident had disregarded its advice not to engage with each other.
The resident made a new ASB report on 5 March 2021 regarding pets being buried in the communal garden, that there was tatty garden ornaments and the dumping of a kitchen stool and hose pipe. In response the landlord requested that resident complete diary sheets and advised her not to have contact with Neighbour A.
The resident chased the complaint response on 15 March 2021 and 22 March 2021.
The landlord contacted the police on 29 March 2021 to ascertain whether it had received any new reports of ASB regarding Neighbour A. The police responded on 30 March 2021 that it had not received any further reports of ASB and the decision had been made to close the complaint.
On 6 April 2021, the resident resent the request to the landlord for her complaint to be escalated to the final stage of the landlord’s complaint procedure. The resident advised that her preferred outcome to the complaint was for the landlord to pay the water bill and arrange for the resident to have their own control of the water meters to prevent the situation reoccurring. Also, the landlord should refund a proportion of the management fee in recognition that the situation had been mismanaged. With regard to the disposal of rubbish, the resident requested that the landlord install CCTV to catch the person dumping rubbish and contaminating the recycling, clarify who was living in Neighbour A property and carry out training for its staff as the communication fell below the required standard.
On 13 April 2021, the landlord responded to the communication received from the Member of Parliament on 24 March 2021. It advised that it had investigated the ASB reported by the resident, that mediation was declined and that the complaint was closed in October 2020. It has received a new report of ASB from the police and it would be attending a multi-agency partnership meeting. It advised that the police were responsible for the resolution of criminal activity and it did not have sufficient evidence to take action regarding the reports of fly tipping or against Neighbour A. In addition, it confirmed that it was not intending to install CCTV as it was not convinced that it would provide the required evidence it would need to take tenancy action. Furthermore, it considered mediation to be the most effective resolution to the reported ASB.
The landlord responded at the final stage of the complaint procedure on 21 April 2021. It advised that it had decided not to escalate her complaint to the review stage. The reasons for that decision were:
1. Recognised that the situation with water meters and billing had caused frustration. It was considering setting up separate and individual meters, however, this would rely on the landlord being able to have individual meters calibrated and this could have a cost implication for all residents.
2. Considered that it had complied with Ofwat regulations and was obtaining advice to confirm this. It confirmed that there had not been access issues that prevented the water supplier obtaining accurate meter readings.
3. Accepted that there had been delays in receiving bills from the supplier and it should have taken more action regarding this.
4. Agreed to reimburse £100 of the management fee in the financial year 2020/2021 as it recognised that the water bills could have been better managed.
5. Prohibited from providing information on the occupants in other properties that it managed as there were strict rules regarding confidentiality and data protection.
6. Participated in a multi-agency meeting on 13 April 2021 regarding the ASB and the police had confirmed that it was not taking action.
7. It was monitoring the situation regarding the ASB with its partner agencies and would take appropriate action if necessary.
8. It did not intend to install CCTV but would keep the decision under review.
9. Clarified that the communication from the Property Manager was meant to provide clarity while maintaining impartiality. There was no intention to cause offence.
After the complaint process was exhausted the water supplier advised the landlord that the installation of eight meters would need to be in a communal area and the landlord would need to organize the private supply pipe from the property to the highway boundary. It provided a quote for the work and the landlord wrote to the management agents for permission to carry out the work to the pedestrian highway. The resident continued to make ASB complaints in September 2021 about Neighbour A.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

resident’s concerns regarding the service charges applied to the account for water charges.

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has followed its policies and procedures and acted appropriately. It is not within the jurisdiction of this Service to assess the reasonableness or level of service charges payable by a resident as this would be a matter for the First Tier Tribunal.
The resident has expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s management of the water charges. The landlord in its complaint response acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction and accepted that there could have been better monitoring of the water charges account. It explained that it received a single bill for the water charges and the amount was proportioned between each property. It considered the resident’s suggestion regarding the calibration of the meters to provide more accurate bills. Whilst it agreed to explore this option, it informed the resident that this was likely to incur an additional cost which could result in higher bills. This was reasonable as it took steps to manage the resident’s expectations.
The landlord has demonstrated in its complaint responses, that it reviewed its communication with the resident. It concluded that its communication could have provided greater clarity when explaining that in the first instance, it used an estimated charge until it received the actual bill. It addressed the accuracy of the water charge, by confirming that there was compliance with the meter reading schedule and the frequency in which the meters were read.
The landlord showed its willingness to resolve the resident’s concern by considering if there were any other measure that it could undertake regarding the management of the water charges. It advised of its intention to install individual meters into each property which would enable residents to have more control over their water usage. It agreed to provide an update to the resident by 1 March 2021. It is noted that there was a delay in the landlord providing the updates to the resident regarding the installation of the meters. However, when it did so, it did advise the complexity of installing individual meters and that it needed to communicate further with the water supplier.
The landlord was resolution focused as it accepted in its complaint responses the delays in receiving the water bills from its water supplier and it should have taken action to progress this. The landlord also accepted that it could have managed the resident’s expectations better and apologised for the delay in receiving the water bills. It agreed to reduce the management fee by £100 in the financial year 2020/2021 as a remedy for this.
In deciding on the compensation awarded by the landlord, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors such as the time and effort expanded on pursuing the complaint and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s action. In addition, it considers whether the redress awarded is proportionate to the severity of the case. The landlord’s compensation policy award of discretionary compensation starts from £50 to £250. In this case, the remedies offered during the complaint process are sufficient to put right its failure to monitor and progress the receipt of the water bill. The landlord has apologised and its offer of £100 compensation acknowledges that it did not take sufficient action to ensure that the bills were received on time. The landlord in its complaint responses has acknowledged that the resident was impacted by the delay in receiving the water bills from the water supplier and the award reflects the inconvenience experienced. Furthermore, the landlord agreed to consider installing individual water meters to the building to enable residents to have individual control of their water bills.

resident’s report of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from Neighbour A.

When assessing complaints about the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has adequately investigated the reported issues and taken appropriate and proportionate action in line with its policies and procedures.
The landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy by responding to the information that it received from the police that it had served the community protection warning letter to Neighbour A. It confirmed the outcome of the visit in writing to Neighbour A regarding the allegations of cannabis use by her and her visitors. It noted her denials regarding the cannabis use and reminded her of her responsibilities under the tenancy agreement.
The landlord correctly determined that as the reports made by the resident related to criminal activity, the police had the responsibility for resolution and appropriately sign posted the resident to them. The landlord’s ASB policy advises that the resident can request a Community Trigger if she remains unhappy with the handling of the ASB complaint. It is a short coming that this information was not provided to the resident and a recommendation is made later in the report regarding this.
With regard to the reports of dumped rubbish, it assessed that it had insufficient evidence to take specific action against Neighbour A, therefore it wrote to all residents of the building to explain their responsibilities to ensure the correct disposal of rubbish. The landlord gave reasons for its decision not to install CCTV in the building. Whilst the resident found the landlord’s course of action unsatisfactory as she wanted more personalised action taken against Neighbour A, the landlord’s approach was proportionate and reasonable as it reflected the severity of the ASB that had been reported. Furthermore, from the available evidence, the landlord had no direct evidence that Neighbour A was the cause of the dumped rubbish or fly tipping.
The resident is unhappy that the landlord has not taken formal action against the Neighbour A despite her providing images of occupants at Neighbour A property for its review. The landlord’s explanations are reasonable regarding the installation of cameras in the back garden and at the front door as it has to ensure that it complied with its legislative responsibilities to protect the privacy of all residents. The landlord had assessed that the police were the responsible authority to address the allegation of cannabis use. Furthermore, it needed to have good reasons to install the cameras and it held that the installation of the CCTV could not be used for the purpose of identifying the people entering and leaving Neighbour A property. The landlord also considered its responsibilities under the General Data Protection Act to maintain confidentiality and explained that this was the reason that it could not provide information to the resident regarding the occupants at Neighbour A property as she was not entitled to the information.
With regard to the installation of the CCTV in the back garden and to the front door, the landlord also considered that this would increase the service charge payable by resident and it would need to carry out consultation with residents before this could occur. The evidence shows that the landlord’s decision was reasonable taking into account that the survey carried out to assess the prevalence of ASB generated a single response from the occupants of the building. Therefore, this could indicate there was not a general consensus that this was an issue that other residents wanted the landlord to resolve.
The landlord acted fairly by informing the resident that it had received counter allegations from Neighbour A about her behaviour. It acted appropriately by informing her of the allegations it had received, allowed her to provide her point of view and informed her of the next steps that it proposed to take advising that it did not have sufficient evidence to take action.
The landlord acted appropriately in its management of the ASB case as it took appropriate steps to contact the resident in August 2020 to advise of its intention to close the ASB report. Before doing so, it liaised with the police to obtain further information regarding the action that it was taking and considered the survey results. Once informed that the police were not taking further action and that the offer of mediation had been declined and it had not received any further reports it closed the ASB case. The landlord also carried out a risk assessment in accordance with its ASB procedures, however it could have discussed support options with the resident regarding her son and the impact on his health. Taking all this into account, the landlords actions were reasonable.
The resident make a new report of ASB on 30 October 2020 regarding an incident that occurred in the supermarket. In accordance with its ASB policy, it signposted the resident to the police. This was an appropriate course of action as the matter was to be addressed by the police as the incident involved criminal behaviour.
The landlord reported on two separate occasions reports of rubbish dumping and fly tipping in December 2020 and a separate report of ASB from Neighbour A, abusing her in the hallway. In its complaint responses, the landlord reiterated its position that without evidence it could not take action regarding the ASB and it did not have any evidence. It reviewed the images that had been provided and had been unable to identify the occupants. It’s response showed its willingness to review the situation to see if there was any action it could take. Whilst the resident remained unconvinced by the landlord’s assertion that it was unable to identify the people in the photographs, the landlord had already sent warning letters to all residents in the building. Also, to take stronger action would require evidence that could not be disputed and the landlord had assessed that it did not have this.
The landlord has demonstrated a willingness to resolve the dispute by suggesting mediation to the resident to help defuse the situations between her and Neighbour A. This offer was declined by the resident when made by the landlord and it is noted it was also declined when offered by the police. The landlord is not responsible for ensuring that ASB does not occur or for maintaining relationships between neighbours. The landlord is expected to take appropriate actions in response to resident’s concerns, which in this case it has done.
Looking at the available information regarding the resident’s reports of ASB to the landlord, there was reasonable amounts of contact to inform the resident of its decision and the actions it proposed to take. It is recognised that the resident was dissatisfied that the landlord refused to install CCTV as she saw this as a resolution to the reported smoking of cannabis by Neighbour A and to improve with the disposal of refuse. There is sufficient evidence that the police acted as the lead agency regarding the reports of cannabis use and that it had informed the resident to keep her distance from Neighbour A and suggested mediation. Accordingly, the landlord position was that it lacked evidence to take any further formal action.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the service charges applied to the account for water usage, which resolves the resident’s complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from Neighbour A.

Reasons

The landlord has accepted that it should have undertaken better monitoring of the water charges and taken action to ensure that the bills were received earlier. It has apologised for this failure and has reduced the management fee of the service charge in regard to this recognising the inconvenience to its residents.
The landlord has demonstrated that it investigated the resident’s reports of ASB, reminded Neighbour A of her responsibilities under the tenancy agreement and liaised with the police. It took non legal remedies such as sending letters to resolve the reports of dumped rubbish it received, offered mediation with Neighbour A and explained its decision not to install CCTV in the garden and to the building.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord to provide information to the resident on how to contact the Local Authority to request a Community Trigger of the handling of the ASB complaint.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its ASB procedure to ensure that if it determines that another agency is the most appropriate to lead on the resolution to the reported ASB, it gives clear information to the resident regarding its decision to do so.