Southern Housing Group Limited (202201579)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 2022015799

Southern Housing Group Limited

30 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of;

Reports of anti-social behaviour.
Counter-allegations of anti-social behaviour made against the resident.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling approaches.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 41(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
This Service is aware that in June 2022, the landlord took legal action against the resident in relation to her own alleged behaviour and her partner’s behaviour. This investigation does not consider whether this action was appropriate and instead focusses on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour. This Service cannot make determinations on judgements and orders made in civil and criminal courts.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and her property is a two-bedroom, ground floor flat, within a block. Her tenancy commenced in October 2017. The resident lives with her partner and two teenage children, however the resident’s signed tenancy agreement shows that she is the sole tenant of the property.
The landlord’s records state that there are no vulnerabilities recorded on the landlord’s systems for the resident or her family.
The landlord is a housing association and in December 2022 it completed a merger with Optivo and is now known as Southern Housing Group.

Scope of Investigation

Records provided by the landlord and the resident show that the anti-social behaviour (ASB) in this case between the resident and a neighbour stems from a parking dispute in 2018.
Although it is noted that there is a long history of anti-social behaviour (ASB) reports by the resident, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from January 2021 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s complaint responses. This is because resident’s are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

Summary of Events

On 23 January 2021, the landlord’s records show that it received reports of a serious incident between the resident and the neighbour. The resident and the neighbour both gave different accounts of what had happened during the incident.
Having carried out investigations, the landlord issued both the resident and her neighbour with tenancy warning letters on 2 February 2021 in relation to the incident on 23 January 2021. The letter to the resident referred to the behaviour of her partner during the incident.
The local policing team confirmed to the landlord on 19 March 2021 that there was insufficient evidence to pursue prosecutions through the criminal courts, in relation to the serious incident of 23 January 2021.
On 22 March 2021, the landlord attended court and obtained a possession order (suspended) against the resident due to rent arrears on her account.
The landlord’s records show that on 11 April 2021, an incident of ASB occurred in the communal car park outside the block. It was alleged that the resident’s partner, along with a group of other residents and visitors had assaulted the resident’s neighbour. It was also alleged that the neighbour was subjected to racist abuse. The police also attended and it was reported that the resident had been verbally abusive towards her neighbour’s visitors.
On 13 April 2021, the landlord sent witness appeal letters to resident’s at the block following reports of the alleged ASB incident on 11 April 2021. The landlord received a response from a resident who wished to remain anonymous. This independent resident stated that they believed the resident and her partner were the main cause of the ASB in and around the block.
Around this time the resident installed a CCTV system on the exterior of the block, and later stated that this was following advice from the police. On 19 April 2021, the landlord sent a letter to the resident in which it informed her that her installation of CCTV without its permission may be considered a breach of her tenancy. It outlined the relevant sections of her signed tenancy agreement. It also provided information about the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and the associated implications. It advised the resident that she should put a sign up to advise other residents of the CCTV. It also asked the resident to remove the CCTV by 26 April 2021.
Also on 19 April 2021, the landlord sent a letter to all residents of the block advising them of the CCTV system above the communal door, although it did not state that the resident had installed it. It asked residents for their comments about the CCTV system and provided information about the Information Commissioner’s Office.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 21 April 2021 in which she stated:
1. She had installed the CCTV system on the advice from the local police for her safety.
2. She had written a brief letter to other residents seeking their support in being allowed to keep the CCTV in place until the situation with her neighbour was resolved and she felt safe.
3. Other residents had signed the letter giving their support and the resident provided a copy of it to the landlord.
4. The letter sent by the resident to other local residents contains 16 signatures in support of the resident’s CCTV system remaining in place. In the letter, the resident named her neighbour and gave their address. The letter also referred to threats being made against the resident by her neighbour’s family. The resident confirmed that she was using the footage for the sole purpose of recording her neighbour and passing footage to the police. She stated that she would delete any other footage.
The landlord called the resident on 23 April 2021 and asked her to remove the CCTV system from the communal area of the block. The resident refused to remove it and the landlord advised that it had not changed its position and requested again that the resident removed the CCTV.
On 30 April 2021, the landlord sent a letter to all residents at the block in which it outlined a number of concerns following reports of anti-social behaviour it had received:
1. It asked all residents to not disturb others when using the communal gardens. It advised that it was increasing the security of the gardens by fitting locks to gates, giving access to resident’s only.
2. It reminded residents that the visitor’s parking spaces were for anyone to use, including visitors and resident’s.
3. It reminded all resident’s of their responsibilities regarding the proper use of communal bin stores and a bike store. It stated that it would be changing the locks on the bin and bike stores to only allow access to resident’s.
4. It advised all residents that it had received reports of ASB, specifically in the streets and communal gardens, but also in and around the bin stores. It stated that there was evidence of drinking and smoking cannabis and that it was working with the police on these issues. It also reminded resident’s of the covid-19 restrictions in place at that time.
5. It asked residents to contact it if they had any questions regarding the content of its letter.
The landlord called the resident on 5 May 2021, and advised her that she needed to remove her CCTV system from the communal area of the block.
On 4 June 2021, the landlord’s solicitors served the resident with a notice of seeking possession. The notice outlined the following reasons for the notice;
1. Rent arrears.
2. It outlined eight separate incidents of ASB, which made reference to allegations of racist abuse, threats and intimidation, installation of a CCTV system and drug use.
3. The notice also outlined the residents tenancy clauses which it believed she and her partner had breached.
4. A covering letter with the notice informed the resident that an engineer would be attending the block on 9 June 2021 to remove her CCTV camera. It stated that the landlord’s staff and the police would also be in attendance.
The landlord’s records show that on 3 and 4 August 2021, it requested information from the local policing team having been made aware of a further alleged incident of ASB which took place on 29 July 2021. The police replied on 18 August 2021 and stated that a report regarding the alleged incident on 29 July 2021 had not been inputted on to its systems but was allocated a reference number. The police also advised the landlord of a further alleged ASB incident involving the resident’s partner and her neighbour which occurred on 3 August 2021.
During August 2021, the landlord received further evidence relating to allegations that the resident and her partner were continuing to cause ASB in and around the block.
On 19 August 2021, the landlord sent a letter to the resident requesting that her partner moved his motorcycle from inside the bicycle store as it was causing a hazard.
The resident called the landlord on 23 September 2021 to make a formal complaint. She stated the following:
1. She was unhappy with the landlord accusing her of being racist and wanted it to apologise to her for this.
2. She named two members of its staff who she believed had made these allegations against her.
3. She felt that the landlord’s housing services manager had behaved unprofessionally and requested that another member of staff was assigned to her case.
4. She was unhappy with being served notices of seeking possession and she requested that the landlord overturned them.
On 24 September 2021, the landlord sent a letter to the resident, confirming receipt of her complaint. It stated that it would issue its stage one complaint response to her by 7 October 2021.
On 7 October 2021, the landlord sent an email to the resident stating that it needed more time to investigate and respond to her stage one complaint. It stated that it would issue its response by 21 October 2021.
The resident called the landlord on 15 October 2021 and provided a police crime reference number following an incident on 28 August 2021, where she alleged that her neighbour had spat at her. She stated that she was the victim of ASB from her neighbour and her and her daughter had both suffered anxiety having received death threats from members of her neighbour’s family. The resident stated that the landlord had taken legal action against her without having any evidence and wanted it to apologise to her and overturn the notices seeking possession.
The landlord issued the resident with its stage one complaint response on 21 October 2021 in which it stated:
1. It believed that it had followed its own policies and procedures in addressing the allegations of racist behaviour with her.
2. It would not apologise to her for this.
3. It would not be overturning either of the notices seeking possession it had issued against her and it highlighted the sections of her tenancy agreement that it felt she was in breach of.
4. It did not uphold her claim that its staff had acted unprofessionally as it had no evidence of this.
On 27 October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord via email and requested that it escalated her complaint to stage two of its complaints process. She outlined the reasons why she was unhappy with its stage one complaint response;
1. She felt that the landlord had not taken her complaint seriously as it was investigated by one of the members of its staff whom she had complained about.
2. She had spoken with the local police and stated that they did not believe that she was part of a hate crime and there was no evidence to support its staff’s claims of racism. She provided the details of the police officers she had spoken with.
3. She stated that she was informed that it is for the police to decide whether a hate crime had taken place and it was not something that could be said by one person and taken as fact.
4. She stated that none of the landlord’s allegations listed on the notices seeking possession against her had been investigated by the police.
5. She advised that the crown prosecution service were looking at the incident on 28 August 2021, where the resident reported that her neighbour had spat at her, verbally abused her and intimidated her in front of her children. She stated that there were three witnesses to this incident. She asked the landlord why it was not treating this incident as a hate crime against her.
6. She disagreed with its decision to not overturn the notices seeking possession and felt that its staff had acted unprofessionally by accusing her of racism.
7. She raised concerns again that her neighbour had previously made death threats to her children’s father and also that her neighbour was known to be armed with a metal bar.
8. She requested again that the landlord apologised to her and overturned the two notices seeking possession it had issued to her.
Having not received a stage two response from the landlord, the resident contacted it on 4 November 2021 and requested an update.
On 24 November 2021, the landlord sent letters to all local resident’s regarding an incident which had occurred the previous day. The landlord’s records do not outline what this incident was, however it referred to it as a serious incident which occurred in the car park of the block. It asked for any witnesses to come forward and explained that they could remain anonymous should they wish to. It also advised that it was working closely with the local policing team regarding this incident.
On 25 November 2021, the resident called the landlord and informed it that she was unhappy with it installing a CCTV system outside of the block. She requested that the landlord provided her with a copy of the images from the CCTV system so that she could be aware of what it could see as she stated it was pointing directly into her window. The landlord’s records state that it advised the resident that she would need to contact the police to request copies of any images from the CCTV.
The landlord contacted the resident via email on 10 December 2021 regarding her stage two complaint. It apologised for its delays in issuing its response to her. It stated that the delay was due to a senior manager having not reviewed her case. It stated that it aimed to issue its stage two response within the next 10 working days.
The landlord’s records show that on 4 January 2022, its staff were discussing in internal emails the delays in issuing the resident with its stage two complaint response. It referenced within the emails that during the complaints process the resident had requested a call from the landlord about her complaint, yet she had never received this. Its staff stated that they would leave the resident’s request for a telephone call with the manager who was due to issue the stage two response.
The landlord contacted the resident via email that same day and apologised to her for its delays, which it stated was due to staff absence. It stated that it would provide her with its stage two complaint response by 10 January 2022. The resident replied and stated that she had made several requests for it to call her about her complaint and she found this unacceptable.
The landlord issued court proceedings for possession of the resident’s property on 17 January 2022. In correspondence to the resident it confirmed a court hearing date of 22 February 2022.
On 18 January 2022, the landlord sent an email to the resident and offered its sincere apologies to her for its delays in providing her with its stage two complaint response.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage two complaint response on 20 January 2022 in which it stated:
1. It apologised for its delays in providing her with its stage two response.
2. It advised that its staff had not directly witnessed the alleged incidents of racist language but it had relied on the statements of witnesses.
3. It further advised that its decision to pursue legal action against her was based on its own assessment of the available evidence and also the legal advice from its solicitors.
4. It outlined its position around the alleged hate incidents and referred to its ASB and hate crime policy, giving detail of how it defines a hate crime.
5. It stated that the local police had confirmed they had received allegations of racist behaviour, but did not have sufficient evidence to pursue a prosecution through the criminal courts.
6. It did not agree that its staff had acted unprofessionally by raising the allegations of racist behaviour with the resident. It stated that its staff had acted appropriately based on the information it had received.
7. It confirmed that it had recently changed its staff’s working areas but stated that this was due to reasons unrelated to the resident’s case. It hoped that the resident could build a good relationship with the new member of staff assigned to her area.
8. It confirmed that it would not be cancelling or overturning the notices seeking possession which it had issued against the resident following the allegations of ASB. It stated that it felt this was a proportionate response to the seriousness of the allegations made against her around May 2021, which followed a warning she had received on 2 February 2021.
9. It stated that should there be further incidents of ASB, it would investigate and may decide to enforce the notice seeking possession through the courts and she would have the opportunity to challenge its evidence at a court hearing.
10. It felt that the best way forward in the case was for the resident and her partner and visitors ensured that there was no further ASB. It stated that the most concerning allegations it had received related to her partner’s behaviour and it reminded her of her tenancy obligations to ensure that everyone living at or visiting her property do not cause ASB.
11. It confirmed that it and the local police had issued warnings to the resident’s neighbour following her reports of ASB. It stated that it would continue to take her reports seriously and support her.

Post complaints process

On 22 February 2022, the resident did not attend the scheduled court hearing but the landlord’s records show that it had already made an agreement with her regarding a payment plan to address the rent arrears. A suspended possession order was granted by the courts.
On 1 April 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that as it had not received any recent reports of ASB from her, it would close her case within the next 7 days unless she had further incidents to report.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute resolution principles are to:
1. Be fair
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlord’s obligations

The ASB, crime and policing act 2014 gives social landlords a range of tools and powers to use to address ASB in their communities. It also outlines that landlords should effectively assess the risk and vulnerability of any resident affected by ASB and offer appropriate support. It further details that landlords should ensure that residents who are reporting ASB should understand how the matter will be investigated and kept well informed of progress.
The landlord’s ASB and hate crime policy outlines the following;
1. It defines hate crime as “Any incident, which may or may not constitute a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hate”.
2. It will deal with all reports of hate crime and hate incidents as high risk cases of ASB and respond within one working day.
3. It will take a victim-centred and robust approach to tackling ASB including prevention and early intervention.
4. It will risk assess all reported ASB. This includes looking at the vulnerability of those experiencing ASB in order to assess the support and action required and to be able to prioritise those most vulnerable or at risk of harm. It also outlines that it will complete risk assessments for both victims and witness of ASB, along with the perpetrator(s).
The landlord’s complaints policy outlines a two-stage complaints process. It will respond at stage one within 10 working days. Its stage two complaints process details 3 options; compensation review, complaint review panel or a senior manager review. It states that it aims to respond to stage two complaints within 20 working days, however where this is not possible, it will inform the complainant and provide reasons for any delay and will give a new response date. Its policy also outlines that any revised stage two response date will not exceed a further ten working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will try to provide excellent services at all times and if it fails to do this it will;
1. Apologise for any failures.
2. Take appropriate action to rectify the issue or failure.
3. Consider if it is appropriate to recognise this failure by way of a goodwill gesture or a payment of compensation.
4. It further states that in instances of service failure and where it has failed to follow its own policy and procedure, it will make goodwill payments of £25 or up to £50 in instances of multiple service failures.

The landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour.

The landlord’s ASB and hate crime policy outlines that it will carry out risk assessments for both victims and perpetrators of ASB, in order to determine any vulnerability and offer relevant support. From reviewing the records provided by the landlord, there is no evidence to show that it assessed the resident’s vulnerability at any point in the case, in the context of her being both a victim and an alleged perpetrator of the ASB. It is noted that the landlord’s records in relation to the notice seeking possession served on her regarding rent arrears stated that the resident did not have any vulnerabilities, but it did not assess the resident’s vulnerability and risk regarding the ASB she was reporting. This is particularly important as the resident informed the landlord that the ASB was impacting on her and her children. This Service finds that the landlord did not follow its own policy and procedures due to its failure to assess the resident’s potential vulnerabilities, nor did it make any appropriate offers of support on her behalf relating to the ASB.
The resident’s signed tenancy agreement outlines that permission must be sought from the landlord for resident’s to make any additions or alterations to the property. This covers the installation and use of CCTV systems. Whilst it is understandable why the resident installed CCTV, she did not obtain the landlord’s permission to install the CCTV therefore it was not unreasonable for it to require that she removed it.
The landlord carried out good practice during its investigations into the reported ASB. It sent enquiry letters to all resident’s in the block and did not name the resident or her neighbour in its letters. This approach shows that it was not taking sides and that it acted appropriately by trying to gather independent witness evidence to assist its decision-making. This Service finds that the landlord acted appropriately by carrying out its own investigations with other resident’s.
The landlord’s use of anonymous (hearsay) witness evidence was further good practice in its investigations and this enabled it to form a better picture of what the ASB was and who was responsible. Social housing landlord’s are able to use hearsay evidence in civil law cases, although the courts will not give as much weight to it when compared to live witness evidence. It is noted throughout the ASB case that the resident often referred to the police not taking legal action against her or her partner in the criminal courts. The landlord was in contact with the local police and requested relevant information, which this Service finds was further good practice. Despite the police not taking any legal action(s) against the resident or her neighbour, the landlord still considered the tools and powers available for it to use as described in the ASB, crime and policing act 2014.
Throughout this case, the resident refers numerous times to the police not taking action on the allegations against her and has stated that she found the landlord’s actions against her to be unreasonable. Social landlords are equipped with the ability to take legal action to address ASB through civil courts where as the police mostly deal with the criminal court system. Civil cases have a lower burden of proof when compared to criminal cases. In this case, the landlord could have explained this in more detail to the resident in order to manage her expectations and be clearer on its position.
It is unclear from the landlord’s records what action it took or considered against the resident’s neighbour in relation to allegations that a member of the neighbour’s family had made threats to kill towards the resident. It is also unclear when this alleged incident happened. It is referred to on the resident’s petition dated 21 April 2021. Threats of violence should be classed as an serious matter and responded to within 24 hours to assess the immediate risk of harm and a longer term solution. This is outlined in the landlord’s ASB policy.
The landlord’s records do not show that it agreed an action plan with the resident at the earliest opportunity in relation to her reports of ASB. Whilst the landlord took appropriate steps in terms of investigating and seeking further evidence, it failed to communicate to the resident what actions it could take. As it failed to assess the level of vulnerability posed, it also missed an opportunity to identify and offer relevant support that may have assisted the resident throughout the life of the case.
The landlord’s records show that on 15 October 2021, the resident reported an incident on 28 August 2021 where she alleged that she was spat at by her neighbour. Had the landlord known about this incident as soon as possible after it had happened, it could have acted on it sooner. Residents should always report such incidents to their landlords and/or the police as soon as possible to assist their investigations.
Whilst the landlord did on the whole carry out appropriate and timely investigations into the reported ASB, its failure to assess the resident’s vulnerability and risk in relation to her being both a complainant and alleged perpetrator of ASB felt short of its outlined policy position. As it also did not offer support to her in the case, this Service finds that the landlord’s actions amount to service failure.

The landlord’s handling of counter-allegations of anti-social behaviour made against the resident.

The resident’s signed tenancy agreement outlines that she is responsible for the behaviour of anyone living at or visiting the property.
It is often difficult for landlord’s to investigate and resolve ASB cases where there are counter-allegations from the parties involved. Landlords must therefore ensure that they carry out investigations and try to obtain independent witness evidence from other local residents and partner agencies to support their position. This Service finds that the landlord acted appropriately and in line with its policies and procedures by carrying out its investigations.
Whilst it was clearly distressing for the resident to have received allegations of racist behaviour against her and her partner, it was appropriate for the landlord to raise this with her. The landlord’s ASB and hate crime policy outlines that it will take all reports and allegations of racist abuse seriously. It is noted from the records provided to this Service by the landlord that the resident and her partner were not convicted of any offences in a criminal court. It was appropriate for the landlord to make its own assessment of the evidence it had obtained against the resident and also for it to also consider the legal advice it received from its solicitors.
As the landlord brought possession proceedings against the resident on both rent and ASB grounds, the resident had the opportunity to attend court and make out her defence at the hearing on 22 February 2022. It is noted that she did not attend this court hearing and therefore missed the opportunity to either by herself or through an instructed legal representative provide her defence, including any evidence she had gathered herself.
The landlord’s ASB and hate crime policy refers to the use of CCTV where appropriate as part of investigations into reports of ASB. There is no evidence to show that it considered installing a CCTV system earlier in the case which could may have been helpful in its investigations as the resident and her neighbour were making allegations against each other. It is however noted from the landlord’s records that it did install CCTV at the block in November 2021. This Service finds that this was a proportionate step taken by the landlord, however it should have considered this much earlier in the case as it may have assisted it in obtaining supporting evidence sooner and could have brought an earlier resolution to the case. It may also have enabled the resident to feel more comfortable in removing her own CCTV system for which she did not have the landlord’s permission to install.
In light of the above assessment, this Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of counter allegations made against the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord contacted the resident in September and October 2021,to explain its delays in issuing its stage one complaint response. It stated that it required more time to investigate. It took 21 working days to provide its response to the resident. This Service finds that the landlord failed to follow its own complaints policy guidelines by issuing its stage one response to the resident in 21 working days as its policy states that it will respond within 10 working days.
The landlord then took 59 working days to issue its stage two complaint response to the resident. The resident had to chase the landlord multiple times for its stage two response. Whilst it did contact the resident and apologise for its delays, its records show that the only explanation it gave was due to staffing issues. On 4 January 2022, the landlord advised the resident that it would issue its stage two response to her by 10 January 2022, however by this stage it was already well beyond its stated 20 working day response deadline of 23 November 2021. This Service finds the landlord’s delays were unreasonable and its response time fell well short of its 20 working day policy position, and also well outside of its maximum ten-day extension period. This Service also finds that the landlord therefore twice missed the opportunity to resolve the resident’s complaint at the earliest possible stage. This left the resident within its complaints process for an extended period and this affected her ability to bring her complaint to this Service. Additionally, whilst the landlord informed the resident that it was extending its complaint response deadline, it did not approach this in a customer focussed way in that it told her, rather than agreeing it with her.
Whilst it is noted that the landlord did offer its apologies to the resident for its delays in providing its stage two complaint response, it did not consider applying its own compensation policy by offering any payment of compensation to her in recognition of its service failing. This Service finds that the landlord’s delays in issuing both its complaint responses to the resident caused inconvenience to her as she experienced further time and trouble in chasing it for its responses.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of counter-allegations of anti-social behaviour made against the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling approaches.

Reasons

Whilst the landlord, following its investigations, considered the resident and her partner to be perpetrators of ASB, they were also at times the victims. The landlord did not apply its own ASB and hate crime policy by carrying out any assessment of the risk to the resident and her family, or their vulnerability in the context of being both a complainant and an alleged perpetrator of ASB. Landlords cannot make informed decisions on offering appropriate support to both complainants and perpetrators of ASB if they do not assess the potential for vulnerability and risk.
The landlord’s investigations into the allegations of hate crime against the resident were proportionate and appropriate given the serious nature of the reports. The landlord’s approaches showed some areas of good practice which enabled it to make informed decisions on the direction of the case.
The landlord’s complaint handling approaches, with specific focus on its delays, were a significant failing and it failed to try and put things right by applying its own compensation policy which clearly outlines the steps it will take when its actions or inactions amount to a failure in service.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident £300 compensation, which is comprised of:
1. £100 in relation to its responses to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. £200 in relation to its failures in its complaint handling approaches.

Recommendations

The landlord to consider refresher training for its staff around the importance of completing risk assessments and action plans with all victims, witnesses and perpetrators of ASB.