GreenSquareAccord Limited (202004624)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004624

GreenSquare Group Limited

27 February 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 handling and response to the:
1. issue of an eviction notice;
2. resident’s reports of noise disturbance and ASB;
3. resident’s report of an incident with a warden;
4. disposal of items following the resident’s eviction;
5. reports of repairs including to the intercom system;
6. related complaints.

Jurisdiction

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 will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42 (f) of the Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.
Evidence seen by this Service show that the landlord undertook possession action under the Housing Act 1988 against the resident for anti-social behaviour (ASB). The landlord heard the resident’s appeal on 4 June 2019 regarding its decision to extend the starter tenancy. The landlord was granted possession on 23 November 2020 on or before the 4 January 2021.The resident had the opportunity to obtain legal advice regarding the proceedings and on 5 July 2021 had a hearing to request a stay of the execution of the warrant. The resident was evicted on 8 July 2021.
After considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint regarding the issue of an eviction notice is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident had a starter tenancy which commenced on 25 May 2018. The tenancy ended on 8 July 2021.
The property is described as a one-bedroom flat based on the seventh floor.
The resident has medical conditions including anxiety and depression.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement informs the resident that ASB behaviour or harassment is any act or omission which interferes with the peace and comfort, or which may cause nuisance, annoyance or offence to any other tenants.
The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy sets out its repair categories. Emergency repairs will be carried out within 24 hours. Other repairs are defined as non-emergency repairs which are to be concluded within 28 days.
The landlord’s has a three-stage complaint procedure. The first stage is called resolve for matters that can be concluded within 2 days. The formal two stage procedure is resolved within 10 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy gives guidance on its assessment of compensation when it has not met its service delivery standards.
The resident’s complaint relates to his neighbours who live in the same building as the resident. The property is part of a mixed tenure scheme.

Scope of investigation

The Service determined a complaint 201904192 made by the resident on 27 February 2020. Among other things the determination looked at the compensation offered for the disrepair to the intercom. The determination considered events from May 2018 to 1 July 2019 when the landlord issued its final complaint response.
The determination noted that the resident had raised further issues that were not considered as part of the investigation. The resident made a complaint regarding the repair of a mixer tap. The complaint exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint procedure but the resident did not inform this Service that this matter was outstanding and it was not escalated to this Service. Accordingly, this investigation has focused on and assessed the circumstances of the other repairs escalated to this Service regarding the extractor fan, vanity light and charge socket. This complaint will consider issues from October 2019 and any historic reports relating to earlier than this date are for context only.

Summary of events

There has been a considerable amount of communication between the landlord and the resident regarding the reports of noise disturbance, ASB, the reported repairs and possession action. All the available evidence has been carefully considered. The report will not be addressing every specific issue or incident, rather it will reflect the key points and events which have been summarised. The report will provide a view on the landlord’s overall handling of the issues.
On 14 January 2019, the landlord’s records show that it visited the resident regarding an assault that had occurred between him and another resident. The police informed the landlord on 4 February 2019 that the resident had pleaded guilty to the charge. The landlord met with the resident on 8 February 2019 to discuss the cancellation of the starter tenancy.
Between May 2019 and 18 June 2019, the landlord received six reports from three residents regarding the resident. The reports consisted of loud music being played between 12 am to 2am, verbal abuse, swearing and shouting from the resident.
On 16 May 2019, the landlord’s records agreed to extend the resident’s starter tenancy.
The resident made two counter allegations to the landlord in May 2019 and June 2019 regarding intimidation by his neighbours which he had reported to the police. The landlord advised the resident to keep a record of the dates and times that this had occurred so it could follow up his reports.
On 18 June 2019, the landlord held a review hearing regarding its decision to extend the period of the starter tenancy. The appeal was dismissed and the resident was notified of the landlord’s decision.
The resident reported that a neighbour had made a racial slur and had harassed him on 23 July 2019. In response, on 30 July 219, the landlord contacted the resident to obtain further information. The resident clarified that same day, to the landlord that the neighbour had not made a racial slur on that occasion and that the racial slur had occurred on a previous occasion.
The following day, the resident reported that he could hear noises arising from bedroom floor of Flat A, which was situated below his flat, that he has received threats and that there was a campaign from his neighbours to harass him which he had reported to the police. On 5 August 2019, the landlord requested further information regarding the incident and the resident responded by telling the landlord it should contact the police to obtain the information. The landlord advised that it had spoken to Flat A and enquired whether the resident was still being disturbed by the noise.
The landlord contacted the police on 6 August 2019 regarding the resident’s reports of intimidation. The police advised on 9 August 2019 that the resident was not making a complaint about any resident living in the building.
The resident reported on 14 September 2019 that he had been attacked on the roof of the building and that the occupant of Flat B had allowed access for the attackers to the building. The landlord wrote to the resident’s GP and to the NHS mental health service on 16 September 2020 regarding support for the resident.
On 20 September 2019 and 24 September 2019, the landlord received reports from two third parties that the resident had been verbally abusive.
The NHS mental health team informed the landlord on 27 September 2019 that the resident was not known to their service.
On 30 October 2019, the landlord met with Flat B to discuss the resident’s allegations that he had coerced people to harm him. The allegation was denied by Flat B and the landlord informed him of the further action it could take.
The landlord carried out a proportionality assessment on 6 November 2019. It noted that it had not receive a response from the resident’s GP and that his behaviour could be described as erratic and abusive.
On 8 November 2019 the landlord updated the resident. The landlord advised that it had spoken with Flat B and it had reminded him of his responsibilities for his behaviour and that of his visitor.
The landlord and the police communicated on 14 and 15 November 2019 regarding the resident’s report that he had been harassed by persons unknown.
On 16 November 2019, the landlord held a case review with the tenancy enforcement team. On 21 November 2019, it noted that it had received further complaints regarding the resident’s behaviour, despite the warning letters it had sent.
The landlord’s ASB records show on 26 January 2020 that it had agreed to commence possession action and to continue to monitor whether there were any further reports of ASB during the resident’s notice period.
On 5 August 2020, the resident reported that the warden cleaning the building had assaulted him. He explained that he had been trying to speak with the cleaner and in doing so had slipped on the wet floor. When he had asked why the wet floor sign was not displayed, the warden swore at him and went to get the sign. On the warden return, the warden hit the resident’s ankle with the sign. The resident stated that the incident would be visible on the CCTV.
The resident expressed to the landlord on 17 September 2020 that he was aware that it had contacted his GP and mental health team without his consent. He disputed that he was a threat to anyone and requested an update regarding the warden who had assaulted him.
The landlord and the resident communicated on 18 September 2020 and 25 September 2020 regarding the intercom to the resident’s flat. The landlord informed the resident that it had experienced delays obtaining the parts to fix the intercom to his property. It was aware that he could not hear visitors speaking into the intercom system but he could use the intercom system to give entry to his visitors. It was considering replacing the whole intercom system to the block, however this would require consultation with all residents, which it intended to start on 1 October 2021.
The landlord responded to the resident on 21 September 2020 regarding the alleged assault by the warden. The landlord stated that it had reviewed the CCTV footage and it was satisfied that an assault had not taken place as the wet floor sign had clipped the rear of the resident’s heel. The landlord advised that it considered the matter resolved and signposted the resident to the police if he was not satisfied with its response. In addition, the landlord informed the resident that it would keep the footage until 28 October 2020 to allow him to do so.
On 23 October 2020, the landlord raised a repair to investigate the bathroom extractor fan that was not working. Later that day the resident rang to cancel the repair, advising that the extractor fan had started working.
The resident made another report on 28 October 2020 that the bathroom extractor fan was not working. An appointment was arranged for 10 December 2020 to repair the extractor fan and to repair the vanity mirror plug socket. In addition, the landlord informed the resident that it had already set out its position regarding the alleged assault by the warden and it would not investigate issues it had already considered in the complaints process.
On 23 November 2020, the court awarded outright possession for 4 January 2021.
On 13 January 2021, the landlord emailed the resident that the Government had extended the eviction ban and the eviction was scheduled to take place on 21 February 2021.
The landlord received reports of noise disturbance from the resident on 26 January 2021 from Flat A and Flat C who lived next door.
On 29 January 2021, the landlord provided an update to the resident. It advised that the electrician attended on 10 December 2020 to overhaul the extractor fan and had left it working. It received a further report on 23 December 2020 that the light in the bathroom was not working and the extractor fan was not working. It had raised an emergency repair to replace the light but had not taken any action regarding the extractor fan as it was left working. The landlord agreed that a Senior Operations Supervisor and Operations Supervisor would carry out a post inspection of the repair to the extractor fan on 7 January 2021 as the resident was unhappy with the repair that had been carried out.
The resident and landlord communicated in February 2021 regarding his complaints. The resident advised that the intercom to his property was not working, reported that he could hear Flat A turning her bathroom light on and off, poor quality network provision from his mobile and reports of clicking from behind the kitchen units. The landlord explained that it could not help regarding the signal from his mobile phone and signposted the resident to his mobile phone provider. The landlord also advised that the noise experienced was day to day noise and not ASB and requested that the resident complete the diary sheets. Furthermore, it apologised if the repairs taking place in the empty flat had disturbed him but the voids works were necessary to get the flat ready for letting.
The landlord also advised that it had assessed the diary sheets that he had provided and the noise did not constitute a breach of tenancy. It acknowledged that it could not identify the cause of the noise, however it would investigate the issue, once the lock down restrictions had ceased.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 17 February 2021 advising that it had requested further information from the resident to assist with its investigation but had not received a response. The key findings were:
1. There was no evidence that an appointment had been made for the repairs to be carried out, that had not been prearranged.
2. The ASB reports had been responded to in a timely manner and it was reviewing the ASB reports to see if further action could be taken.
3. A surveyor and a plumber had inspected the clicking noise behind the kitchen units. It had previously contacted the resident on 20 May 2019 to arrange another visit, however, the resident had not agreed to arrange a convenient date. Once the restrictions were lifted, another inspection will be arranged.
4. The incident with the warden had been investigated and if the resident wanted to pursue this further, he had been advised to contact the police.
5. The extractor fan was overhauled on 10 December 2020 and left working. The extractor fan was not checked again on the visit on 23 December 2020 as it had been previously repaired. The bulb to the bathroom light was changed on 23 December 2020, though this was the responsibility of the tenant.
6. Once the Covid 19 restrictions are removed, it would arrange for the extractor fan to be replaced.
7. The landlord apologised for the delay in carrying out the reported repairs. It acknowledged that the Covid 19 pandemic has impacted its ability to progress outstanding repairs.
8. The landlord requested that the resident provide information about the complaints that the resident maintained were outstanding.
The landlord emailed the resident on 22 February 2021 to advise that:
1. Since its request for more information regarding the outstanding complaints from the resident, this had not been provided.
2. The communication regarding the unannounced appointment related to work being undertaken to the door closer in another property. The operative apologised for this.
3. It would arrange a convenient appointment to investigate the clicking noise in the kitchen once the Covid 19 restrictions were lifted.
4. It would not be investigating the noise from the warden hoovering in the communal area as this resulted from routine cleaning. Therefore, there was likely to be some disturbance to residents.
5. Any breaches of the Covid 19 pandemic should be reported to the police and it could not reveal the identity of people living in its properties.
6. The resident could contact this Service if he was unhappy with its complaint responses.
On 25 February 2021, the resident reported that the light above the mirror and the charge point in the bathroom were not working. The landlord advised that it was only undertaking emergency repairs and it would resume non-emergency repairs once the Covid 19 restrictions end.
The resident contacted the landlord on the same day 25 February 2021, advising that it had not provided recording equipment despite his reports of clicks and bangs in the kitchen.
The landlord received reports on 15 April 2021 that the resident could hear Flat C moving around her bedroom and switching her light switches on and off.
Following contact with this Service on 13 May 2021 the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint regarding the noise from Flat C and work from the contractors working in the empty property.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 26 May 2021 concluding that it was satisfied with its response to his reports of noise disturbance and ASB. It had reviewed the reports it had received and the resident’s previous complaints had been closed.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 June 2021 to request compensation. The resident expressed that as the landlord had not resolved the fault with the vanity light and had not changed the toothbrush charger. He explained that he had to charge his toothbrush in the kitchen, experienced clicks coming from the kitchen walls and had experienced ASB.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 11 June 2021 regarding its decision not to repair the intercom or to provide compensation for the outstanding repairs. The landlord advised that it would respond by 25 June 2021.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 25 June 2021 regarding the decision not to repair the intercom and the outstanding repairs. It advised that:
1. The resident had previously referred his complaint to this service, it had acknowledged its service failure and paid compensation regarding the intercom.
2. Since that time, it had been unable to fix the intercom unit so that it was fully operational. It had been advised that due to the age of the intercom and the parts being obsolete, the intercom could not be repaired.
3. It accepted that it could have communicated its decision not to repair the intercom earlier. However, it was aware that the intercom system has limited functionality and it was not considered a security risk.
4. It confirmed that it would not be undertaking a full replacement of the intercom system as this involved undertaking a full consultation with other residents, many who had different lease agreements to the residents.
5. Furthermore, the replacement of the intercom would result in other residents having to financially contribute to replace the intercom system when they were not experiencing any problems.
6. It accepted that the defect to the intercom system was causing inconvenience to the resident as the intercom had limited functionality. The resident could not hear when visitors buzzed the intercom to announce their arrival, however, the resident could use the intercom to allow his visitors access to his property. The landlord apologised for this and advised that it would not be taking any further action.
7. It recognised that its communication with the resident was poor and it would be addressing its communication with staff to prevent a reoccurrence.
The landlord informed the resident on 25 June 2021 that it intended to take possession of the property on 8 July 2021 and that it was legally obliged to store any items left in the property for 28 days.
The landlord provided its final stage response on 1 July 2021 regarding the decision not to repair the intercom. It concluded that the response was appropriate, the issues had been addressed and it was not taking any further action regarding the intercom. It confirmed that the previous reports of the clicking noise, repair to the vanity light and the holes in the wall had been passed to its contractor for a convenient appointment to be made before 28 September 2021.
The resident was evicted on 8 July 2021 and a tort agreement was signed by the landlord. The tort agreement contained an inventory, informed the resident that his belongings were ready for his collection and that if they were not collected by 8 August 2021, the landlord would dispose of them.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 August 2021 to request the return of his deposit and the credit on his rent account. The resident requested an update regarding his complaint concerning the return of his items following his eviction as it contained important documents.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 September 2021. Among other things, the resident complained that the repairs to the property were not completed within a reasonable timeframe and had only been completed as he had been evicted.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 3 September 2021 and advised that it would respond by 17 September 2021
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 17 September 2021 regarding the ending of his tenancy. The key findings were:
1. It had been unable to reduce its repairs backlog caused by the Covid 19 pandemic, therefore, it had not been able to complete the repairs to his property before he was evicted from the property.
2. Apologized that he was contacted by its contractor to agree an appointment for the repairs to be completed after he was evicted. It had amended its eviction process to ensure that any outstanding repairs are cancelled and then raised with the correct contact details for the new occupant to stop this occurring again.
3. It had given sufficient notice of the eviction date to the resident for him to arrange for the removal of his belongings from the property. The TORT notice explained that his belongings would be stored for 28 days before disposal.
4. Two appointment dates were arranged with the resident for 18 August 2021 and 19 August 2021 for the collection of the belongings. The dates were refused and the belongings disposed of.
5. Appropriate for there to be police support at the office for the collection of the items, given the reason for the eviction and this was not an intentional act to cause distress.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 24 September 2021 regarding the ending of the tenancy and the disposal of his belongings following his eviction. It concluded that its complaint response was appropriate and that it would not take any further action. It also confirmed that all the complaints had been considered and reached the end of its internal complaints procedure.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated their complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

resident’s reports of noise disturbance and ASB

When assessing complaints about the landlord’s handling of reports of noise disturbance and 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 when responding to the reports of noise disturbance that it received from the resident about Flat A. These reports were that the resident could hear noise from the floor of Flat A. The landlord advised the resident to completed diary sheets and, on its review, assessed that the reports of noise disturbance did not meet the threshold to be considered ASB.
The landlord considered further reports made by the resident that he could hear noise behind the kitchen units which he described as “clicking sounds”. It was reasonable for the landlord to send a surveyor and a plumber to determine the cause of the noise. When it could not determine the reason for the sound that the resident could hear, it showed its willingness to find the source of the noise by agreeing to undertake further investigations to establish the cause of the noise.
The landlord investigated the resident’s reports about Flat C that he could hear the resident moving in her bedroom and her bathroom light being switched on and off. In accordance with its ASB policy, the landlord visited the resident and investigated the resident’s concerns. Its assessment that the noise disturbance did not meet the threshold to be ASB was reasonable as the sounds described by the resident was normal household noise and from the resident’s accounts could not be construed as excessive or deliberate.
The resident was disturbed by noise caused by works undertaken in a vacant property to bring it up to standard so that the property could be relet. The landlord assessed that this did not meet the threshold to be considered as ASB and that the works to bring the property into a standard of repair for it to be let was reasonable and proportionate.
The reports of noise disturbance investigated by the landlord did not meet the threshold to be considered as ASB. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s assessment and that the landlord had not provided noise recording equipment. As the landlord had determined that the reported noise was either household noise or reasonable works to bring an empty property to an acceptable standard, the landlord made a reasonable decision.
The landlord informed the landlord that it could not provide an explanation for the difficulties that he was experiencing with his mobile phone signal. The landlord signposted him to his mobile phone provider for a resolution. This was appropriate as the landlord assessed that this was not an issue for it to resolve and correctly signposted the resident to his mobile phone provider as the appropriate body to provide a resolution for his concerns.
The landlord investigated the reports of intimidation and threats it received from the resident. In accordance with its ASB policy, it contacted the police who confirmed that the resident’s reports did not involve any residents from the building and it contacted the resident to obtain clarification regarding the report of the racial slur. The landlord interviewed Flat B regarding the reports of harassment and intimidation that was made and gave reminders regarding his conduct.
In accordance with its ASB policy, the landlord contacted the health professionals known to the resident before undertaking a proportionality assessment to obtain a full understanding of his needs. Following the proportionality assessment, a case review was undertaken and it agreed to continue monitoring even though possession action had commenced for the eviction of the resident. The landlord is expected to take reasonable and proportionate action in response to reports of ASB, which is this case it has done.

resident’s report of an incident with a warden

The resident made a report that he had been assaulted by a member of its staff. In response, the landlord investigated the incident that had been reported by the resident to establish what had occurred and if there was further action was required. The landlord’s investigation included the viewing of the CCTV and it concluded that an assault had not taken place.
The landlord determined that it would not take any further action regarding the resident’s report as it was satisfied that an assault had not taken place. The landlord correctly signposted the resident to the police as the appropriate body to investigate the resident’s allegations of assault and determine whether criminal action was possible, if he wanted to take matters further. There is no evidence that such a report was made to the police.

Its disposal of items following the resident’s eviction

The Court awarded possession to the landlord. The landlord obtained an eviction date in June 2021 and appropriately informed the resident of the date of the eviction and how it proposed to deal with his belongings. This was necessary to give the resident sufficient time to find alternative accommodation and to give sufficient time to pack his belongings.
The evidence shows that the tort notice informed the resident that he had to collect his belongings within 28 days and the action that it would take if he did not do so. Furthermore, the resident made two appointments with the landlord for the 18 August 2021 and 19 August 2021 regarding the collection of his belongings. Therefore, the resident was aware that the landlord had stored his belongings and they required collection. It is not reasonable to expect the landlord to keep these belongings for an indefinite period of time.
In his complaint response, the landlord recognised the resident’s concern regarding the police presence at the time of the collection of his belongings and advised that the purpose was not to cause harm or alarm to the resident. The landlord has not explained why it deemed it necessary to have the police present whilst the resident’s belongings were collected, however, the landlord is expected to undertake risk assessments and make the necessary arrangements to mitigate any risks that it has assessed that could affect it or its staff.

Reports of repairs including to the intercom system

During the Covid 19 pandemic, the Government issued guidance regarding the actions social landlords could take when carrying out repairs. This impacted on the delivery of the service provided by landlords. For certain periods during the Covid 19 pandemic, the landlord carried out emergency repairs and this resulted in a backlog of non-emergency repairs that it was working through during the period of the resident’s complaint.
The resident rang to report on 28 October 2020 that the extractor fan was not working in his property. The repair was assessed as a non-emergency repair in accordance with its repair standards and the landlord completed the repairs just outside its repair standard of 28 working days. The landlord’s records show that the extractor fan was left working. However, the resident raised a further report that the extractor fan was not working on 23 December 2020. The landlord attended the same day but did not undertake to check the extractor fan to make sure it was working.
The landlord agreed to attend on 7 January 2021 to post inspect the repair to the extractor fan undertaken on 10 December 2020 but there is no evidence that it did this. Furthermore, in its complaint response, the landlord agreed to replace the extractor fan when the Covid 19 restrictions ended. From the available evidence there is no evidence that it attended to replace the extractor fan, though it agreed to do so.
The landlord responded to the resident’s report that his bathroom light was not working on 23 December 2020. It raised an emergency repair, replaced the light bulb that had blown. The repair fell within the tenant’s responsibility, however the landlord acted appropriately in replacing the bulb to ensure that it left the resident in a safe environment.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged that it had written in error to the resident regarding the fitting of a door closure to another resident’s property. The landlord recognised that its communication had caused upset to the resident and apologised for its error.
The resident reported that the mirror and charge point in the bathroom were not working in February 2021. This was assessed as a non-emergency repair and in accordance with its repair time limits should have been completed by the end of March 2021. The landlord has acknowledged that it did not keep to its published repair limits. It is noted that as a consequence of the Covid 19 pandemic the landlord had a large build-up of outstanding repairs.
The resident has stated that he was impacted as he was unable to charge his toothbrush in the bathroom. The landlord in its complaint response, recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident but did not assess whether an award of compensation was necessary for this.
The resident complained to the landlord that the intercom was not working in the property. The landlord has accepted that only the intercom in the resident’s flat is faulty and due to the age of the intercom, it could not be fixed as the parts are no longer available, From the available information, the landlord initially agreed to carry out a consultation with its resident regarding the replacement of the intercom system. The landlord’s submission to this Service does not indicate when it decided not to continue with this course of action. The resident has experienced an unacceptable delay in the landlord communicating that it was not taking action to repair or replace the intercom in his flat. The landlord was aware since at least from the summer of 2020 that the intercom could not be repaired, it gave the resident the impression that the consultation exercise would lead to the replacement of the intercom system. The landlord did not inform the resident until June 2021 that it was not taking action to make the intercom in his flat operational.
Furthermore, in its complaint response, the landlord has recognised that the resident was inconvenienced by the limited functionality of the intercom system. It advised that it did not believe that the situation did not pose a security risk for the resident. However, the landlord has not given sufficient regard to the situation the resident faced without a completely functioning intercom and it had an obligation to ensure that the resident had one.

Related complaints

The resident made a complaint to the landlord at the beginning of February 2021. From the available information, the exact date the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the repair appointments and its contact with his health practitioners without his consent is not clear. The landlord’s submission showed it sought to obtain clarification from the resident to establish what the substantive concerns were and it responded to the complaint on 17 February 2021.
The landlord reaffirmed to the resident its position regarding the incident with the warden and the repair to the door closure in February 2021 and appropriately signposted the resident to this Service if he was unhappy with its decision.
Looking at the resident’s communication, it was clear that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response and following contact from this Service on 13 May 2021. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 25 May 2021 within its published time scales.
The resident made a further complaint on 11 June 2021 about the outstanding repairs to the intercom and the vanity light mirror. The landlord responded within its published time limit on 25 June 2021 acknowledging the delay in completing the repair to the intercom and for the quality of its communication to the resident.
Whilst it recognised the delay in providing the complaint response and offered an apology for this. It did not consider whether an offer of compensation was necessary. This was not appropriate as the resident had experienced an unacceptable delay in the landlord communicating that it was not going to repair the intercom to the flat and for the landlord finding a solution to the defect to the intercom.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 1 July 2021. This was in accordance with its published complaint response. It confirmed that it agreed with the previous complaint response and advised the resident that he could expect the outstanding repair to the vanity light and socket to be completed by 28 September 2021. The resident was evicted on 8 July 2021, which was shortly after the landlord issued its complaint response and before the target date for the repair to be completed.
The resident complained on 1 September 2021 regarding the disposal of his belongings. The landlord responded on 1 September 2021 addressing that it had handled the disposal of his belongings appropriately. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 24 September 2021. The landlord confirmed that it considered that its complaint response was appropriate and that it considered that it had addressed all of the resident’s concerns. The landlord could have used this opportunity to give a fuller explanation of the factors it had considered in reaching its decision, rather than relying on the information contained in its earlier complaint responses.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling and response to the resident’s reports of noise disturbance and ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling and response to the resident’s report of an incident with a warden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling and response to the issue of the disposal of items following the resident’s eviction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling and response to the reports of repairs, including to the intercom system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling and response to the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy when it concluded that the reports of noise disturbance did not meet the threshold to be considered ASB. The landlord investigated the ASB reports, conducted interviews and monitored the reports of ASB that it received and considered the evidence from the police.
The landlord investigated the conduct of its staff and concluded that there was no evidence of inappropriate behaviour. Furthermore, it was satisfied that an assault had not occurred and signposted the resident to the police if he wished to take further action.
The landlord gave the resident a reasonable opportunity to collect his belongings following his eviction but the resident failed to do so.
The landlord was informed that the parts to the repair the intercom was unavailable and could not be sourced. It did not act to find a solution for the resident and did not inform her within a reasonable period that it did not intend to undertake the repair.
The landlord assessed that it had unnecessarily delayed in informing the resident that it would not repair the intercom but during its internal complaint process it did not consider whether an offer of compensation was appropriate for this.

Orders

The landlord to contact the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation, broken down as follows:
1. £200 for its delay in communicating its decision that it was not going to repair the intercom and the inconvenience experienced by the resident for having an intercom with limited functionality.
2. £100 for not addressing the resident’s request for compensation.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.