Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202117544)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117544

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

3 April 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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of ASB by his neighbours.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns that it did not take his vulnerabilities into account when dealing with his reports of ASB.
3. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, which is a Council. The property is a flat in a block. The resident’s flat is on the ground floor, the neighbours complained about live on the top/third floor of the block. The lease commenced on 13 May 2013.
The resident has advised this service that the landlord had been aware since 2005 that he is a vulnerable person suffering with OCD, heightened anxiety and morbid depression. The resident explained that he gets panic attacks, suffers with insomnia and is dyslexic.

Scope

There is a history of ASB regarding the resident’s neighbour which the resident has said dates back four years. However, this assessment will focus on events that occurred between 31 July 2021 when the resident first notified the landlord of his concerns until its final response to his complaint on 15 December 2021.
This Service acknowledges that the resident has concerns about the impact of his neighbours’ behaviour on his mental health and wellbeing. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on physical or mental health as assessment of fairness in such cases requires a level of expertise that the this Service is unable to provide.
This Service can also not determine whether the landlord has breached is obligations under the Equality Act 2010 or Section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, nor whether the landlord is liable for a tenant’s nuisance as these are legal terms which are better suited to a court to decide.
However, this report has considered whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns. This service is aware that the resident is/has been supported by EASS (Equality Advisory and support service) and so he may wish to discuss with them whether there is any legal recourse available to him.

Summary of events

On 31 July 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to report two domestic arguments between his neighbours that continued throughout the evening of 30 July and into the early hours of 31 July 2021. The resident said that his neigbours used ‘new levels’ of bad language, that he heard what sounded like furniture being moved, that there were comings and goings by both of the neighbours and that at one point one of his neighbours appeared to be naked and digging with her hands in the dirt outside his bathroom window.
The resident said that at that he became concerned for his own safety as he thought something like a brick would be thrown through his window, or something worse. Shortly after this the Police came and he let them into the block, although he had not called them, and a short while after the Police left the neighbours argument seemed to continue, loudly over the phone. The resident said that the landlord should have a record of this as he had called the concierge who had promised that a report would be sent to housing management. The resident also said that:
1. On 17 July 2021 there was a serious disruption from about 7:30pm, when his neighbour’s brother and their partner arrived, that continued on and off until the early hours of the following morning. The resident said that it was apparent that his neighbours knew he had reported this incident to the Police as he had seen his male neighbour in the corridor a few days later and he had apologised for the noise. The resident said that when they went up the stairs the female neighbour had questioned why her partner had apologised and used foul language to describe all the other residents of the block.
2. Over the weekend of 24 and 25 July 2021, there had been another serious disruption by the same neighbours that seemed to last for hours. Eventually the Police came and his male neighbour was arrested.
3. The history of these disruptions went back to when the female neighbour moved into the building and that he was aware that two of his other neighbours had also made complaints.
4. The landlord had been aware since 2005 that he was a vulnerable person, referring to complex mental health problems, including OCD, heightened anxiety and morbid depression and that he suffers with intrusive unwanted thoughts which in turn cause panic attacks. The resident said that he had started to fear for his own safety as his neighbours knew he had reported them.
On 7 October 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to say that several months previously, on 31 July 2021, he had written to it about ongoing ASB by his neighbour. The resident said that:
1. The landlord was aware from his previous letters that he suffered from OCD, heightened anxiety, and morbid depression. The resident questioned the landlord as to why it had moved a problem tenant into a building of just six flats, knowing that at least two of the existing residents were vulnerable individuals.
2. The previous day there had been a further incident, the Police had attended and there was persistent hammering at 4am, which he later found out was the Police changing the locks. The resident said that the ongoing disturbances were beginning to affect his own mental health, his anxiety levels were very high and his emotions had become traumatic. The resident also said that he had been afraid to take his dog out, such had been the fear, the fear had turned to anger and resentment, and he had felt aggressive and defensive.
3. He was now having to consult with his doctor with regards to his own mental health, the deterioration of which had partly been caused by the landlord’s negligence. He had brought his own flat and if he wanted to sell it, he would have to inform the buyers that there was a problemed neighbour which could result in economic loss as the buyer could ask for a price reduction or may even pull out of a sale.
On 8 October 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to report an argument at his neighbour’s property that sounded very nasty, and that listening to this dispute caused his anxiety levels to ‘‘rocket’’. The resident said that the landlord’s decision to put the neighbour in his block and its failure to deal with the ongoing problem demonstrated a display of contempt on its part for the other residence in the building. The resident said he was asking the landlord to make it stop with immediate effect.
On 8 October 2021, the resident also contacted the NHS 24/7 Urgent Mental Health Helpline to ask for further support regarding his mental health and support regarding his housing situation. The helpline completed a safeguarding referral to the Council, contacted the Police and encouraged the resident to phone the police if he had concerns about his personal safety. The helpline form made no reference to them contacting the landlord.
On 26 October 2021, the landlord’s Neighbourhood Assistant emailed the resident to ask if he would be available the following day to discuss the ASB by his neighbours. The resident followed up the call with an email on 27 October 2021 in which he expressed his lack of confidence in the Neighbourhood Assistant’s suggestion that his neighbour be served with an order to keep the noise down. The resident also referred to a telephone conversation he had had with the Neighbourhood Assistant following his report of 31 July 2021 in which the contact with the Police was discussed and questioned why the landlord had not done so. The resident again raised concerns about the landlord’s decision to move his neighbour into his building when it knew he was a vulnerable person.
On 6 November 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to advise that that evening he had to call the Mental Health Crisis Team again as his anxiety was ‘‘crippling’’ him to the point he could not think. The resident said that the landlord was aware of his concerns but had done nothing effective about it. The resident also reported two further incidents involving his neighbours. The first on 31 October 2021 involved the attendance of four police officers and the second on 4 November 2021 woke him up at 8:50am and went on for about an hour and a half. The resident also said that during a conversation on 27 October 2021, the landlord had asked if he would like to be referred to Victim Support, which he said he would, but he had not heard from them.
On 13 November 2021, the landlord’s Neighbourhood Officer emailed the resident to confirm that the Neighbourhood Assistant had contacted him by phone to conduct a telephone interview, had contacted other residents in the block and had been in contact, and liaised with the neighbourhood Police team. The ASB team would be carrying out a door knocking exercise to gather further evidence, that tenancy action was being taken against the neighbour and that a referral was made to Victim Support, who would be in contact with the resident shortly.
The resident responded to the Neighbourhood Officer’s email the same day. The resident said that:
1. The ASB by his neighbour had been ongoing for four years, although he accepted that he only reported this in writing on 31 July 2021, following which he had a telephone interview with the Neighbourhood Assistant in which he explained that he was a vulnerable person and that the landlord had been aware of this since 2005.
2. He had asked why the landlord would move such a person as his neighbour into his block when it knew there were vulnerable people living there in and, on 14 and 27 October 2021, had provided the landlord with further information regarding his vulnerabilities and the impact the behaviour of his neighbour was having on him, but to date he had received no reply.
3. At no point had the landlord asked what help he might need, or adjustments made to its practice/procedure, in order to make it accessible for him, as a person with a mental disability. The landlord had not made any effort to understand the impact this was having on his mental health, nor had it made any enquiries of him or another medical authority.
4. The landlord’s procedure had been slow and had made him feel like the problem because he was complaining. In reference to the Neighbourhood Officer’s email of 13 November 2021, the resident asked: Who were the ASB team and how would he contact them; when would they visit and why hadn’t they investigated and taken action already.
5. He had spoken to his CPN (Community Psychiatric Nurse) who was putting together a letter which he intended to copy the landlord into. The resident asked that the landlord not close the case until it had considered this letter.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 18 November 2021. The landlord apologised for the distress the incidents had caused the resident and other residents in the block. The landlord:
1. Confirmed that whilst its Neighbour Assistant had been supporting him and other resident’s, and gathering evidence of ASB, its Neighbourhood Officer had been liaising with the perpetrator.
2. Said that it was unable to disclose specific details of its discussions with the neighbours due to data protection laws. However, it could confirm that the Police and its ASB team were working to resolve the problems he was experiencing, and that its ASB team would be carrying out a door knock of the block by the end of November 2021 to speak to all residents and to capture witness statements with a view of taking all available tenancy action against the perpetrator in a bid to resolve the issues.
3. Said that, with regards to his query about how it allocated properties, all properties were let in accordance with its Allocations Policy, which it enclosed.
On 23 November 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to escalate his complaint. The resident said that:
1. He had first complained about the ASB in July 2021 but the landlord did not acknowledge his complaint until 16 November 2021 and then did not issue its stage one response until 18 November 2021.
2. In his letter of 13 November 2021 he had advised that he had spoken to his CPN on 12 November 2021 and that she was going to put a letter together which he intended to send to the landlord. The resident said that he had suggested that the landlord not close the file until it had looked at the letter from his CPN and taken it into consideration. However, the landlord went ahead and made a decision without it. A copy of the letter from the CPN was included with his escalation request.
3. The landlord had failed to explain what it was doing and why, which he said would have mitigated the feeling that nothing was being done and that he was helpless.
4. The landlord continued to fail to provide him with an explanation as to why it had housed his neighbour in a block with vulnerable people.
5. The landlord’s response only made casual mention of his disability when this formed a substantial part of the complaint, and had the landlord been more empathetic that would have reduced the stress involved.
The landlord’s Neighbour Service Manager acknowledged the resident’s stage two escalation request on 30 November 2021. They noted that the resident’s preferred method of communication was by email and asked if the resident would like to speak to them before they began their investigation.
On 2 December 2021, the resident emailed to the landlord to report a further incident with his neighbours that day. The resident said that he was asked if it was his dog they could hear barking, if he was on drugs and told that there was a dead, elderly lady following him. The resident said that he was now worried that the neighbour would interfere with his dog when he was out, causing it to bark, that he was now struggling with a panic attack and suggested that the landlord consider putting up CCTV cameras in the public areas or rehouse his problem neighbours.
Following the resident report of 2 December 2021, the Neighbourhood Services Manager emailed the resident on 3 December 2021 to ask whether it would be possible to meet at his home or a mutual place of his choice to discuss his concerns, and that he could have a friend or support worker with him if that would help. The resident initially agreed to meet with the landlord but having discussed it with his sister, decided it was a bad idea as stress and anxiety worsened his mental health condition, and that he would be liable to lose his temper if stressed and frustrated.
On 6 December 2021, the Neighbourhood Services Manager emailed the resident to apologise for the delay in their response, explaining that this was due to having to conduct further investigations into the ongoing situation with the neighbour. They would be seeking an internal update, they intended to have a meeting with the ASB team to see how the situation could be resolved and would make every effort to respond to the complaint no later than 22 December 2021.
The resident responded the same day to say that the landlord was making same mistakes as at stage one and that he was asking reasonable questions and receiving no answers, which was frustrating had had a negative impact on his stress, anxiety and OCD symptoms. The resident also referred to delay in providing its response and a copy of its reasonable adjustment policy.
On 7 December 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that officers from its ASB team would be carrying out a door knocking exercise the following day. On 8 December 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to confirm that this had gone ahead, noting that the landlord had previously said that this would take place by the end of November 2021.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 15 December 2021:
1. With regards to the ASB, the landlord said that:
  1. It was aware that the resident had made his initial report on 31 July 2021, which was acknowledged and responded to by its Neighbourhood Assistant, who quickly contacted the resident and his neighbours to discuss the problems.
  2. His case was escalated to its Neighbourhood Officer who then instigated an investigation, which was later escalated to the ASB team.
  3. The neighbour had received an official warning letter from the ASB team, which addressed the actions of both the neighbour and her visitors. The landlord said that this should prevent any recurrence of the nuisance and that strict measures had been put in place to curb any anti-social behaviour, and should the conditions be broken there would be further consequences for his neighbour.
  4. It would continue to work closely with the Police and other internal services and the ASB would continue to keep him updated when necessary.
2. With regards to the resident’s mental health, the landlord said that it acknowledged the resident’s concerns, it was aware that he was receiving support from his CPN and that it felt that the resident’s CPN or doctor would be best placed to assist him with his mental health, especially when he felt his anxiety and stress levels were exacerbated by the situation with his neighbour. However, if the resident felt he needed additional assistance it could make referrals to different organisations who could officer support if he felt this would be useful.
3. With regards to why it had allowed his neighbour to move into her property, the landlord said that this was done in accordance with its Allocations Policy, which had already been sent to him.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. When considering the landlord’s handling of the matter, the Ombudsman is guided by the landlord’s policies and procedures and our own Dispute Resolution Principles, which are, ‘be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process; put things right and learn from outcomes’.
When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to a complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered, in accordance with this services Remedies Guidance, which can be found on our website.

Response to reports of ASB

This Service acknowledges that the incidents reported by the resident have caused, and continue to cause, him distress and anxiety. However, it is important to note that it is not this Service’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it has received and whether it had followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of the circumstances of the case.
During the period covered by this report, the resident reported incidents of ASB on multiple occasions between 31 July 2021 and the landlord final complaint response of 15 December 2021. A period of five months.
During this period the landlord advised the resident to report incidents to the Police, said that that it was dealing with the reports of noise nuisance and possible domestic violence but was unable to provide detailed information of what that actually entailed, contacted him by phone to conduct a telephone interview, contacted other residents in the block and liaised with the neighbourhood Police team.
By the time of the landlord’s final response, five months after the resident’s reports of 31 July 2021, the landlord had carried out a door knocking exercise, issued the neighbour with an official warning letter and put measures in place to curb any further anti-social behaviour by that neighbour.
Overall, the landlord’s actions with regards to its investigation and actions taken, during the period covered by this report, were fair and reasonable. This is because, it investigated in a timely manner, examined the evidence of the ASB, and considered whether it would be appropriate to take action based on the nature of the evidenced ASB, which it did in issuing the neighbour with a warning letter and putting measures in place to curb any further anti-social behaviour.
However, this service has seen limited evidence of the landlord providing the resident with timely updates as to what was happening with regards to his case, outside of responding to concerns about its actions raised by the resident, which it would be expected to do.
Not only has this service seen limited evidence of the landlord keeping the resident updated, there is also evidence, most notable in the landlord’s Neighbourhood Officer email to the resident on 13 November 2021, of the landlord’s communication with the resident lacking empathy for his mental health concerns and providing only very brief and somewhat dismissive explanations of what actions it had taken.
Whilst the resident’s urgency for the ASB to be resolved is understandable, ASB investigations can take some time to progress as there must be a robust evidence gathering and investigation process, as a landlord would need to demonstrate to a court that it had taken all possible reasonable steps to tackle the ASB before initiating formal enforcement action.

The resident’s concerns that the landlord did not take his vulnerabilities into account when dealing with his reports of ASB.

Given the known vulnerability of the resident, the landlord would be expected under both the Equality Act 2010 and the Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard, to demonstrate that it had taken steps to ensure that it understood the needs of the resident and to demonstrate that it had respond to those needs in the way it provided its services and communicated with him.
The landlord’s ASB policy states also states that it will:
1. Recognise that some residents may have vulnerabilities, including those with learning or physical conditions, mental health illness or other support needs.
2. Endeavour to carry out a risk assessment, to identify if support is needed, and whether a referral needs to be made to a relevant support agency. Examples of the support available include referrals to a Victim Support Officer and for mental health support.
3. Give full consideration to its safeguarding responsibilities when dealing with anti-social behaviour and will strive to meet its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
At the time the resident first wrote to the landlord, on 31 July 2021, to report incidents of ASB by his neighbour, the landlord was aware of the resident’s complex mental health needs, the resident had also clearly explained what his vulnerabilities were and the detrimental impact the ASB was having on him in his correspondence to the landlord.
The resident continued to signpost the landlord to his vulnerabilities and the detrimental impact the ASB was having on him on multiple occasions throughout the period covered by the report. These included, but were not limited to 7 October 2021, 6 November 2021, 13 November 2021, 23 November 2021, 2 December 2021 and 6 December 2021.
However, there is no evidence of the landlord taking any steps to help or support the resident with his concerns until 27 October 2021, when it asked if he would like to be referred to Victim Support and in its final response of 15 December 2021 when it referred to different organisations who could offer him support if he felt this would be useful.
This was not a reasonable amount of time for the resident to have to wait for the landlord to take steps to ensure that it understood his needs and to respond to those needs in the way it provided its services and communicated with him, which it was obliged to do under the Equality Act 2010 and the Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard.
It is also noted that it was only through the actions of the resident himself, contacting the NHS 24/7 Urgent Mental Health Helpline to ask for further support regarding his mental health and support regarding his housing situation, that referrals were made to the appropriate mental health and safeguarding services.
Having considered the evidence it is clear that the landlord could have offered the resident additional support, or referred him to any relevant services at a much earlier point and that it missed multiple opportunities to do so. This represents a significant failure by the landlord which resulted in unnecessary upset to the resident and an understandable feeling that the landlord was not taking his concerns about his mental health and wellbeing seriously.
It has been noted that the landlord made no mention in its final response of the resident’s concerns of 6 December 2021 regarding the landlord’s Reasonable Adjustments Policy. It is unclear from the evidence whether this was ever provided by the landlord. Whilst this document was not requested in this services initial information request, it was specifically requested on 2 March 2023 as part of this investigation. However, in response to our request the landlord forwarded a copy of its Housing Allocations Policy stating that this what had been requested.
Whilst reasonable adjustments may be referred to in its Housing Allocations policy, the landlord should also have a separate Reasonable Adjustments Policy in place which should apply across its services, not just at Allocation, as set out in this services Complaint Handling Code (Section 2.4).That the landlord was unable to provide this would suggest that either it does not have separate Reasonable Adjustments policy or that there was a lack of training and understanding within the organisation regarding that policy.

Handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord has a two stage complaints policy which confirmed that at both stage one and stage two the landlord will provide a response within 10 working days, which can be extended to up to 20 working days where there is reason to do so. The customer will be contacted by way of a holding letter if this should happen.
The resident’s initial contact with the landlord about his neighbours of 31 July 2021 was correctly identified by the landlord as a service request and not a formal complaint, because at that time the resident was complaining about the actions of his neighbours and not the actions of the landlord. This was in accordance with this services Complaint Handling Code which defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.
However, by the time of the resident’s email to the landlord of 8 October 2021, it is evident that the resident was expressing dissatisfaction with the action or lack of by the landlord, stating that its failure to deal with the ongoing problem demonstrated a display of contempt on its part for the other residence in the building. As that was the case the landlord should have logged and responded to the resident’s concerns through its formal complaints procedure. However, it did not do so until the resident expressed his continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s actions/inaction on 13 November 2021, over a month later.
Having not recognised the resident’s complaint until 13 November 2021, the landlord did then issue its stage one response within the 10 working days stated in its complaints policy, on 18 November 2021. However, whilst the landlord provided a general explanation of what actions it had taken with regards to the ASB it did not provide the resident with any response with regards to his concerns that it had failed to provide him with any support given his known vulnerabilities. Whilst it would not have been appropriate for the landlord to have given detailed information about why it had moved his neighbour into his block, it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to provide him with its general position as to how it allocates property, in reference to the Allocation Policy it sent him, rather than just saying it had acted in accordance with that Policy.
As such, the landlord failed to act in accordance with this service’s Complaint Handling Code which states that landlords should address all points raised in the complaint.
The resident escalated his complaint on 23 November 2021. According the landlord’s Complaints Policy, it should have issued its stage two response within 10 working days, by 7 December 2021. As it was not able to do so, the landlord acted in accordance with both its Complaints Policy and this service’s Complaint Handling Code by writing to the resident on 6 December 2021 to explain that it was conducting further investigations and to confirm that it would provide a response by 22 December 2021, which it did, issuing its final response on 15 December 2021.
However, again the landlord only provided a general explanation of its actions with regards to the ASB and repeated its position that it acted in accordance with its Allocations Policy with regards to its decision to move the neighbour into the resident’s block. Whilst the landlord did acknowledge the resident’s concerns about his mental health and offered to refer him to relevant organisations if he felt that this would be useful, it failed to reflect on whether it should have done more and at a much earlier point, given its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and the Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard, and its own ASB policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of ASB by his neighbours.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns that it did not take his vulnerabilities into account when dealing with his reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

Whilst the landlord’s actions with regards to its investigation and response to the resident’s reports of ASB was reasonable, there were issues with regards to its communication with the resident. Communication is a key element of a landlord’s handling of ASB as it not only informs the resident what is happening but also ensure that the resident does not feel like their concerns have been forgotten or not taken seriously, which was the situation in this case.
The landlord failed to demonstrate that it recognised its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and the Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard, and its own ASB policy. It has not evidenced that it had taken steps to ensure that it understood the needs of the resident nor that it had appropriately respond to those needs.
The resident’s initial complaint about his neighbours was correctly identified by the landlord as a service request. However, the landlord then failed to identify the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s actions in his correspondence of 8 October 2021 as a formal complaint which delayed the issuing of its stage one response. The landlord also failed to provide reasonable responses to a number of elements included in the resident’s complaint, including concerns about it allocating the neighbour a property in his block and whether it should have offered support to him at a much earlier point.

Orders and recommendations

That within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,000 compensation made up of:
  1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident as a result of its communication failures with regards to the ASB reported by the resident.
  2. £600 for its failure to evidence that it took reasonable and appropriate steps with regards to the resident vulnerabilities when dealing with his reports of ASB.
  3. £200 for its complaint handling failures.
3. Ensure that its Reasonable adjustments Policy is provided to the resident, this service and is easily accessible on its website. The landlord is also to review what staff training might be necessary to ensure an appropriate level of understanding of this policy across the organisation.
4. Review the complaint handling failures identified in this report. The landlord is then to confirm to this service what steps it has taken to ensure that similar failings do not happen in the future, such as staff training and ensuring that its processes are in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
5. Confirm that it has complied with the above orders.
If the landlord does not have a Reasonable Adjustment’s policy it is to notify this service of this within 28 calendar days of this report, and is then to ensure that one is drafted within the following 28 calendar days. Once the policy has been drafted it is to be shared with this service, the resident and on its website and to ensure any relevant training is arranged for its staff.