Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202201300)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201300

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

2 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct;
2. Response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour;
This report also considers:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to install closed circuit television (CCTV);
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident became a tenant of the landlord in January 2022. She resides in a ground floor bedsit flat which is part of a Victorian house that had been converted into flats.
The resident has disclosed several mental health diagnoses.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. Stage one complaints should be responded to within ten working days and stage two complaints within 15 working days. The policy states that “on a small number of occasions we may withdraw the complaints procedure from a complainant whose behaviour is unreasonable”.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that the landlord will use a range of tools to manage ASB including mediation, noise monitoring, and tenancy warnings. It also states that it will carry out a risk assessment and agree an action plan with those reporting ASB.
On its website the landlord differentiates between ASB, neighbour disputes, and ‘general living noise’. It defines low level disagreements about lifestyle issues like noise as neighbour disputes. Loud music, noise from household appliances, footsteps etc are described as general living noise rather than ASB. The landlord’s neighbour dispute policy states that if a resident is vulnerable (as determined by the findings of a completed risk assessment) it will apply its ASB policy rather than the neighbour dispute policy.
The landlord’s closed-circuit television (CCTV) policy states that tenants must request permission from the landlord prior to installing CCTV and that cameras must not capture communal areas or other people’s properties.
The resident made three formal complaints to the landlord between January 2022 and May 2022 about staff conduct and ASB handling. These are all considered in this report.

Summary of events

On 28 January 2022, the landlord’s neighbourhood coordinator (NC) visited the resident to conduct an initial starter tenancy appointment.
On 9 February 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint (Complaint A) stating she had received prejudicial treatment from the NC based on her age. The resident said:
1. Since moving in to the property she had experienced hostility and intimidation from her neighbour. She informed the NC of this at her initial starter tenancy visit but was advised that they did not handle neighbour disputes.
2. On 9 February she had received a phone call from the NC. They had discussed the issues that the resident was experiencing with an upstairs neighbour. The NC then stated that the resident was the same age as her own daughter and that she was giving her advice as though she was her child. The resident stated that she was not a child and expected to be treated as an equal and an adult.
3. The NC stated that the resident was twisting her words and “hung up” the phone.
4. She felt “insignificant…defeated…belittled and hopeless” following the incident and that the conduct was discriminatory and unprofessional.
On 24 February 2022 the landlord provided a formal response to Complaint A. It said:
1. It understood that the resident was unhappy with the way she had been treated which she felt was due to her age.
2. The NC had been spoken to and had advised that:
  1. She had explained to the resident that due to her role she could not comment on antisocial behaviour or neighbour disputes.
  2. She had said that the resident should try and get on with her neighbours as best she could, and that she would tell her daughter – who was the same age as the resident – the same thing if she was having the same issue.
  3. She had advised the resident that she would be terminating the call as the resident was upset.
  4. She had been trying to give advice and had thought she had built rapport with the resident. She did not mean to cause upset or offence and with “hindsight understood that her comment may not be appropriate”.
3. The landlord apologised to the resident for any offence caused and advised that the NC would be mindful of professional boundaries in future.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 March 2022. She said she was dissatisfied with the response and would be “escalating this matter externally”.
On 14 March 2022, the resident made a second formal complaint (Complaint B) to the landlord. The resident stated that she felt her ASB reports about her neighbour were not being taken seriously. She specifically said:
1. Her neighbour had been banging on their floor and making reports about the resident for playing music during the day.
2. She felt the landlord was giving her neighbour preferential treatment, and cited that the enforcement officer (EO) had referred to her neighbour using a nickname and she felt the EO was reluctant to “reprimand” her neighbour.
Internal communications dated 15 March 2022 from the EO to the complaint team state that the resident had made three formal complaints and had experienced issues with staff and neighbours in three of her five previous addresses. The EO did not state why he considered this information was relevant to the complaint about ASB handling.
On 17 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to request permission to install a doorbell CCTV camera. The landlord refused permission due to “Information Commissioners Office (ICO) guidance”. It is unclear what specific guidance this refers to.
On 29 March 2022, the resident requested a response to her complaint. Case notes from the complaint show that the landlord telephoned the resident on 31 March 2022, three days after the response was due, to advise that its response would be outside of the timescales in its complaint policy.
The landlord responded to Complaint B on 4 April 2022. The response stated:
1. Noise that caused an issue for others could be defined as ASB at any time of the day or night.
2. The resident’s neighbour had CCTV cameras, but they were inside her property, not attached to the building.
3. There was no preferential treatment, ASB cases were judged on the evidence present.
4. Tenants were welcome to request that staff call them by their preferred names.
5. It was willing to arrange mediation between the resident and her neighbour.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 April 2022 to advise that she was dissatisfied with its response. She said she felt there had been a “general nonchalance” in its response to her reports of ASB. She noted that she had been refused permission for doorbell CCTV due to data protection issues, but her neighbour had CCTV cameras attached to the outside of the building pointed directly down at her windows.
On 5 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord’s ‘housing hub’. She was advised via email that she could install a CCTV camera. However the camera had to be inside the property (in the window) rather than attached to the outside of the building.
On 21 April 2022 and 22 April 2022 the resident contacted this Service regarding her complaints. This Service provided the resident with advice about completing the landlord’s internal complaint procedure.
On 10 May 2022, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated by the landlord. On 12 May 2022, the resident clarified that she wanted the landlord to review both Complaints A and B. This was because she felt the landlord’s stage one response was inadequate as it did not take disciplinary action against the NC. She also felt that her neighbour was receiving preferential treatment.
The landlord responded to the resident on 13 May 2022. It apologised that the resident was offended by the comment made by the NC who it said had not meant any discrimination or ill-intent and was trying to be personable and build rapport. It stated that feedback had been provided to her and any other required action would be handled internally. The landlord advised that its stance would not change as the matter had been investigated and information thoroughly reviewed, and its stage one response was final.
On 13 May 2022, the resident requested clarification about what she needed to do to escalate her complaint. The landlord replied on the same day that its response to Complaint A had been final and advised the resident that she could contact this service. On 16 May 2022, the landlord also confirmed that its consideration of Complaint B was also final “as it has been thoroughly investigated and [its] position remain[ed] unchanged”.
On 24 May 2022, the resident made a third stage one complaint (Complaint C). She requested a new NC because she said the existing staff member:
1. had not responded to communications within the landlord’s timescale of three to five working days
2. did not like her, was treating her differently to others, and was deliberately ignoring her
3. had sent communication to all residents within the block advising them to leave recycling waste below her window.
The landlord provided a formal response to complaint C on 1 June 2022. It stated that the resident was making contact “quite regularly regarding different issues, and it…makes it quite difficult to track all the different lines of communication”. It stated that it understood that the resident was referring to an email sent by the resident on 11 May 2022 which was responded to by the NC the next working day. The landlord advised that it did not have sufficient resources to assign a different staff member to assist her and assured the resident that the NC was working hard to liaise with her and to try and do the right thing by all tenants.
The resident requested that Complaint C be escalated on 7 June 2022, stating that the complaint had not been resolved. She maintained that the NC was acting unfavourably towards her and was ignoring her because of her complaint about her but was having “long chats” with her neighbour. The resident stated that the matter that was responded to on 12 May 2022 was first raised with the housing hub on 7 April 2022 and was therefore out of timeframe. She also stated that the NC had advised all tenants to leave their refuse under the resident’s window thereby causing a “noise and sanitary nuisance”.
On 1 July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and stated that it had been 15 working days since her escalation request, and she had not yet received a response.
On 5 July 2022, five days outside the timeframe in its complaint policy, the landlord provided a stage two response to Complaint C. The landlord stated that there was nothing to indicate that the NC was ignoring her, had a negative attitude towards her, or was treating her differently to others. It reiterated that it did not have the resources to assign another staff member to her alone. The response advised that a manager would inspect the bin area.
On 13 July 2022, a new EO took over management of the ASB case. In their case review they noted that the dispute seemed to have started as a breakdown of communication about a minor issue that had escalated on both sides. The EO stated they would push forward with mediation.
On 25 July 2022, the landlord advised both the resident and her neighbour to remove their CCTV cameras. The landlord advised that permission had not been given and that their placement was inappropriate.
During the previous events, the resident had contacted her local councillor who made an enquiry with the landlord. On 3 August 2022 in communication with the local councillor, the landlord stated that the property was a converted Victorian house, and that sound proofing was minimal. It described the issue as being due to differing tolerance levels to general household noise such as snoring, walking and opening doors.
On 5 August 2022, the landlord referred the resident and her neighbour for mediation.
An ASB case review carried out by the landlord on 15 September 2022 shows that the case was awaiting mediation and that the resident’s neighbour was submitting large amounts of recordings which evidenced minimal sound and were “daytime noise” and so not regarded as being ASB.
On 22 September 2022, the EO again advised the resident to remove her CCTV camera. The resident replied attaching the email sent to her on 4 April 2022 by the housing hub providing her with permission to install CCTV. The EO responded to the resident on the same day advising that the housing hub did not have the authority to give permission for CCTV, that the landlord did not grant permission for CCTV that covered communal areas, and that they had also advised her neighbour to remove her cameras. The resident responded on the same day that the landlord had provided contradictory guidance regarding CCTV. She stated she would turn her camera to face inside her home.
The landlord contacted the resident 27 September 2022 and stated that its mediation provider was struggling to arrange a session with her. The landlord said that the mediation was free to her as it was paying for it. It added that if the resident could not commit to engage it “may take proportionate action against [her] tenancy if further complaints [were] received”. The resident replied that she had been unable to arrange a mediation session as she was attending educational training. The landlord stated that the resident had failed to make contact for seven weeks to make an appointment.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 October 2022 and attached a video recording of her neighbour banging on their floor.
On 11 October 2022, the resident provided the landlord with a copy of an ASB diary outlining reported ASB between January 2022 and October 2022. The resident also sent 11 video recordings which evidence loud banging noises which she stated were caused by her neighbour banging on her ceiling on 20 September 2022, 5 October 2022, and 7 October 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 October 2022 attaching a video of her neighbour kicking a box outside her window. She also advised that her neighbour was leaving the windows in the communal hallway wide open which she stated was causing the properties to be draughty and for feathers from pigeons to blow inside.
The landlord responded to the resident on 13 October 2022 advising that the behaviour she had described was not ASB. It also advised her again to remove her CCTV camera as she did not have permission to have it or to film communal areas.
On 13 October 2022, the resident advised the landlord that she had taken legal advice and had contacted the ICO. She stated she was within her rights to have a CCTV camera in her window as a “crime deterrent” even if it covered communal areas and that “there are no prohibitions against having a camera inside of my home or recording communal spaces.” The resident pointed out that the complaint response sent to her on 4 April 2022 had said that tenants were allowed to film in communal areas. The resident stated that the landlord should “adhere to [its] own polices and be consistent with tenants before giving out contradicting and inaccurate information…. [the landlord] has been very inconsistent with terms of the tenancy agreement, policies and rules making it difficult for me to follow.”
On 14 October 2022, the resident attended a mediation session arranged by the landlord. This was seven months after the resident raised her complaint about the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports.
On 17 October 2022, the landlord sent a copy of its CCTV policy to the resident. This Service has not seen evidence that this had been provided to the resident previously.
On 17 October 2022, the landlord gave the resident’s neighbour a written tenancy warning for harassment of the resident. Within the letter the landlord stated that “whilst making noise outside of the hours of 11pm and 7am is not considered anti-social behaviour, there does appear to be a pattern of harassment”.
The resident has advised this Service that she has not experienced further incidents of antisocial behaviour since the landlord wrote to her neighbour.
The resident requested a community trigger review on 24 October 2022. A community trigger is a multi-agency review of an ASB case, which is available when there has been a minimum of three incidents reported within a six-month period. Following her community trigger application, the resident advised the landlord and mediation provider on 16 November 2022 that she wished to pause mediation until after the community trigger.
On 6 December 2022, following the involvement of this Service, the landlord advised the resident that it had reviewed its handling of her complaint (Complaint A) about discrimination by the NC. The review said the landlord:
1. had “missed opportunities” to resolve the complaint and could have done more to resolve matters more quickly.
2. had “failed to address key points” raised by the resident in its stage one and stage two responses which had lacked detail.
3. acknowledged that the resident perceived the NC’s comments as discriminatory and hurtful and formally apologised for the comments and the impact they had.
4. would revisit the NC’s training on age discrimination.
5. had updated its complaints process in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code and all stage two complaint responses were now reviewed by an assistant director.
6. acknowledged its failure had a high impact on the resident and offered her £350 compensation.

Assessment and findings

Conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff

The resident has stated that she experienced discrimination from the landlord based on her age. It is recognised that the resident was distressed by what she perceived to be discriminatory treatment. Whether or not the Equalities Act (2010) has been breached by the landlord is a matter that would appropriately be decided by a court, not the Ombudsman. The resident could contact Citizen’s Advice if she needs assistance regarding legal action.
In this case the Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s report was appropriate, fair, and reasonable in the circumstances including assessing its response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff.
The resident stated that she felt that the NC should have been disciplined because of the reported discriminatory behaviour. The Ombudsman cannot tell a landlord that it should take disciplinary action against a member of staff. Terms and conditions of employment will be set out in a contractual agreement between a landlord and its staff, and it is for a landlord to decide whether any personnel action is warranted. It would not be appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with details that may relate to an individual’s employment.
The available evidence shows the landlord engaged with the resident’s allegations, gave them reasonable consideration, and responded appropriately. The landlord acted properly by carrying out an investigation, discussing the matter with both the NC and their manager, and explaining to the resident what the NC had been trying to achieve. We have seen no evidence to show that its response to the resident’s allegations was inappropriate.
The landlord advised the resident that the NC had been spoken to, provided details of the NC’s response, and it was explained that the matter had been handled internally. In this case, the landlord provided a reasonable and proportionate level of detail about its investigation into the complaint whilst attempting to maintain confidentiality. This was a fair and proportionate response.
The landlord acted in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles of “putting it right” and “learning from outcomes” by apologising and expressing regret, acknowledging that with hindsight the comment was not appropriate, and that the NC would be mindful of professional boundaries in future.
Whilst this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord mishandled the behaviour of the staff member, there were issues in its handling of the associated complaint which are explored later in this report.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour

It is not the purpose of this report to corroborate reports of ASB. Rather, it is to consider whether there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the reports.
The reports made to the landlord by the resident and her neighbour initially were around neighbourhood management issues such as general living noise and disposal of rubbish rather than behaviours categorised as ASB under the landlord’s policy. Whilst the landlord does have distinct policies and guidelines for neighbour disputes and general living noise, this Service has seen no evidence that it considered applying it in this case or in the neighbour’s reports about the resident. It is unclear why.
In communications with a local councillor in August 2022 the landlord advised that much of the behaviour reported by the resident’s neighbour was general living noise. It said that it considered that the issue was of differing tolerance levels compounded by minimal sound insulation in the properties. Given the landlord’s comments, it is inappropriate that it did not apply its neighbour dispute policy in this instance.
The neighbour dispute policy does state that if one of the parties is vulnerable (as determined by a risk assessment), then the ASB policy will be used. This service has not seen any evidence however that a risk assessment was carried out or that the landlord considered managing the case as a neighbour dispute rather than ASB.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise highlights that when landlords handle general living noise as ASB it can entrench disputes and mismanages expectations. In this case, as the issue was not nipped in the bud, the dispute escalated into intentional harassment.
The landlord applied inconsistent definitions of ASB. In April 2022, the resident was advised that noise could be considered ASB at any time if it caused issues for others. On other occasions, the landlord stated that noise during the daytime was not considered ASB. The landlord conflated the issues of statutory noise nuisance and ASB. ASB is defined as behaviour which has caused or is capable of causing, nuisance or annoyance. Whilst the impact of noise at night is likely to be greater than during the day, persistent loud music or banging during the day is still likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to neighbours who are at home. The period of 11pm to 7am is relevant for noise nuisance because councils can issue warning notices for noise above permitted levels within these hours. This does not however mean that landlords should ignore noise outside of these times. By applying differing definitions of ASB the landlord did not act fairly.
The landlord’s ASB policy details that it takes a victim-centred approach and will use a range of tools to manage ASB including risk assessment matrixes and action plans. Whilst the resident advised the landlord of her mental health vulnerabilities and the impact the reported ASB was having on her health, the landlord has not demonstrated that it considered these vulnerabilities. This Service has not seen any evidence to show that the landlord completed a victim risk assessment matrix or agreed an action plan with the resident. This was a missed opportunity to accurately identify any vulnerabilities that the resident had and the potential impact on her of behaviours she reported.
Internal communications about the resident’s ASB handling referenced that the resident had made three formal complaints and had experienced issues with staff and residents in her previous addresses. These comments appear to indicate that the officer was influenced by issues surrounding the resident’s previous tenancies and had conflated those issues with her current situation. The landlord should have considered the case based on its own merits and not on assumptions based on historic factors regarding the resident – this was inappropriate.
In such cases mediation can be an effective way of resolving an issue by bringing all parties together and can prevent a dispute from escalating into a more serious disturbance. Whilst the landlord offered mediation to both parties, the referral was not made until 20 weeks after the resident made a stage one complaint about ASB handling. Mediation did not commence until 14 October 2022, seven months after the resident’s stage one complaint. It is noted that the resident had delayed her first session due to personal commitments, but this only accounts for around two weeks. Much of the delay was due to the landlord not making the referral promptly, this was a missed opportunity for early resolution.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to install CCTV

Matters pertaining to data protection and General Data Protection Regulations fall within the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Whether the resident or her neighbour are legally entitled to have CCTV filming parts of the communal area is therefore outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Such matters are better suited to the legal process and the resident should seek her own legal advice about this. The resident is also able to contact the ICO for further advice and guidance regarding data protection issues.
What the Ombudsman has investigated is how the landlord handled the resident’s concerns about her neighbours CCTV and her own requests to install CCTV.
The advice provided to both parties regarding CCTV has been inconsistent. In March 2022, the landlord refused the resident permission for a doorbell camera citing “ICO guidance”. It is unclear what specific guidance the landlord was referring to here and it would have been clearer and more transparent to have provided a reference for the guidance so that the resident could research the matter further if she wished.
The landlord did not provide the resident with a copy of its CCTV policy until 17 October 2022. This Service has not seen any evidence to suggest that the policy had been referred to or considered by the landlord during its management of the ASB case despite the matter of CCTV being raised in March 2022 and referred to regularly by both parties.
The landlord’s policy states that residents must obtain permission before installing CCTV. The policy does not state what officer or what landlord department such permission should be obtained from. The resident has demonstrated that she obtained permission to install CCTV in April 2022, albeit from a different team and not from the EO. The policy states that CCTV must not capture communal areas, yet communications demonstrate that the landlord had been aware for some time of the neighbour’s cameras capturing the communal area at the front of the building. In July 2022 however both parties were told to remove their cameras as the landlord stated they did not have permission to install them. In fact both parties did have permission but the landlord was withdrawing this permission.
As the resident pointed out in her communications with the landlord in October 2022, the landlord’s inconsistent and contradictory advice regarding CCTV made it difficult for her to comply with. Due to this the resident understandably felt she was being treated differently to her neighbour and that her treatment was unfair.
The landlord’s decision making was inconsistent and did not reflect its own policy – this was inappropriate. The landlord provided the resident with contradictory information; this caused the resident confusion and caused her to invest an unreasonably amount of time to clarify the landlord’s position. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to install CCTV.

Complaint handling

The landlord responded to Complaint A within the timescale set out in its policy. The landlord did not however escalate the complaint when the resident requested. Rather, on 13 May 2022, it advised that its stage one response had been final and that its stance on the case “will not change”. The landlord’s presumption that further review of the complaint would not alter its decision on the substantive issue was unfair. Indeed, it was also incorrect as when it did conduct a review in December 2022 it fundamentally changed its position.
Following the Ombudsman’s involvement in the case, the landlord wrote to the resident on 6 December 2022 to advise it had completed a review of its initial handling of Complaint A and had found failings which it outlined and apologised for. The landlord acknowledged the impact the failure had on the resident and offered her compensation of £350. Although the Ombudsman did not find failings in relation to the landlord’s handling of this complaint the landlord has taken a resolution focussed approach in carrying out a review and offering compensation.
The landlord did not provide a stage one response to Complaint B regarding within the timescale set out in its policy. It did advise the resident that its response would be delayed but not until it was already three days late. Again, the landlord did not escalate the complaint and advised the resident that its stage one response was final. The landlord’s decision to presume that a further review of Complaint B would not alter its decision on the substantive issue was, again, unfair.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that a landlord must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of its complaint process. Where it takes this course of action it must provide clear and valid reasons for doing so and the reasons must be clearly set out within its complaint policy. The landlord has failed to adhere to the Code and this is inappropriate and amounts to maladministration.
The landlord’s policy states that if a customer is not happy with a decision at stage one, they have the right for this to be reviewed at stage two. The policy does not contain provision for refusing to escalate a complaint. It does state that on a small number of occasions it may withdraw the complaints procedure from a tenant whose behaviour is unreasonable. This Service has seen no evidence that this was the landlord’s reasoning for refusing to escalate the complaint and if it was the case, this Service would expect the resident to have been advised as such and the reasons why. The landlord therefore acted outside of its own policy, and this was inappropriate and therefore there was maladministration.
The landlord provided a stage one response to Complaint C within the timescale set out in its policy. Its stage two response was five days outside of its timescales; however it did apologise for this in its response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. No maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the conduct of a member its staff;
2. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour;
3. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to install CCTV;
4. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord responded to the resident’s allegations of discrimination and unfair treatment appropriately by carrying out an investigation, interviewing the NC, and providing proportionate information to the resident about its findings. The landlord provided redress to the resident by way of an apology. The landlord’s response to the report was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
There is evidence that suggests that the landlord pre-judged the resident’s ASB reports based on issues in her previous tenancies before completing a full impartial investigation based on the factors within the case presented. The landlord also applied inconsistent definitions of ASB, failed to demonstrate that it had completed risk assessments and action plans in line with its policy, and delayed in making referrals for mediation. The landlord’s management of the ASB case was unfair and unreasonable.
The landlord provided inconsistent advice regarding CCTV both to the resident and to her neighbour. As well as causing confusion, this again caused the resident to believe that she was being treated differently to her neighbour and that this treatment was unfavourable. This was unreasonable and unfair.
The landlord acted outside of its complaint policy when it failed to escalate the resident’s complaints. This was unfair and unreasonable.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of this report the landlord to pay the resident £1150 comprising:
1. £400 the landlord previously offered to the resident for its failures in its handling the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. £200 for its failures in its handling of the resident’s request to install CCTV.
3. £350 the landlord offered in December 2022 for failures in its complaint handling.
4. a further £200 for failing to escalate the resident’s complaints in line with its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
If it has not done so within the last six months, the landlord to review staff ASB training materials and conduct staff training ensuring that all relevant staff:
1. can differentiate between ASB, neighbour disputes, and general living noise
2. are aware that case management must be based on the merits of a case and not assumptions about past behaviours
3. complete risk assessments for all cases reported and record the score on the landlord’s case management system
4. complete action plans in agreement with the complainant to ensure that expectations are appropriately managed
5. make referrals for mediation in a timely manner, where referral for mediation is offered.
The landlord should confirm when the training has been completed and provide the Ombudsman with a copy of training materials used within eight weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord develops a clear approach to assessing residents’ requests for permission to install CCTV and publish this in its CCTV policy. The policy should:
1. outline who has the authority to grant permission for CCTV
2. how permissions will be recorded on the landlord’s case management system
3. ensure that all requests are consistently considered against the same criteria.
The landlord confirm to the Ombudsman that the updated CCTV policy has been made available to residents by publishing it on its website within four weeks of this report.
If it has not done so within the last six months, the landlord to review staff training materials and conduct staff training. The training should make clear to all relevant staff that – in line with section 5.9 of the landlord’s complaints policy and section 5.9 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code – a resident has the right to a response at both stage one and stage two of the complaints process if requested.
The landlord should confirm when the training has been completed and provide the Ombudsman with a copy of training materials used within eight weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord considers developing a good neighbourhood management strategy to assist in manging household noise as recommended by the Ombudsman in the Spotlight Report on noise.
The landlord should confirm its intentions in relation to the above recommendations within four weeks of the date of this report.