Peabody Trust (202210638)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210638

Peabody Trust

30 November 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. response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour;
2. handling of ASB reports made against the resident;
3. decision to restrict the resident’s contact with its service;
4. response to the resident’s reports of poor conduct and discriminatory behaviour by its staff.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord which commenced in October 2003. She lives in the property, a 3-bedroom semi-detached house, with her daughter and 2 grandsons. The resident and her grandsons have disabilities which are known to the landlord. The resident’s disability affects her wrists and makes it difficult for her to write or type.
The resident’s next-door neighbour, to whom part of her complaint relates, was also a tenant of the landlord at the time of the events detailed in this report. They moved into the property joined to the resident’s in January 2022.
The landlord was unable to locate a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement for the Ombudsman’s review. No template agreement or tenant handbook was available to view on its website.
The landlord states in its ASB policy that it will ensure all customers are treated in a fair and equitable manner, and that it will work in partnership with communities and local organisations to tackle discrimination, promote equal rights and treat its customers according to their needs. When it receives a report of ASB, it will respond within 2 working days and will assess the reporting party’s risk and vulnerability. It will agree an action plan with them and keep them informed of the actions it takes. It will provide support and advice to victims of ASB, referring them to external agencies where appropriate. Where it finds reports of ASB to be malicious, persistent and unfounded, it will take tenancy enforcement action.
The ASB policy states that the landlord does not consider noise from everyday living, such as children playing and dogs barking, to be a breach of its tenancy conditions. However, where noise is frequently excessive in volume and duration or occurs at unreasonable hours, it will investigate this. It uses a range of preventative measures – including early intervention, mediation and legal action – to address ASB. It will close an ASB case when it considers all appropriate action has been taken, there have been no reports for a period of 6 weeks, and/or the person reporting the ASB is not engaging with its investigation. When it closes a case, it will inform the reporting party of this.
The landlord’s vulnerable persons policy defines vulnerability as “any condition or circumstance that puts an individual or household at risk of losing their home, or any situation which, without support or intervention, places them at risk of abuse, neglect or causes detriment to their overall wellbeing”. The landlord will notify any customer who its assessment process determines to be vulnerable. It will meet statutory safeguarding requirements in line with its other policies and procedures. It will also handle and process personal data in accordance with relevant legislation such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, and respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. Matters it treats as complaints include delays in responding to an enquiry or request, failure to provide a service, and treatment or attitude of a member of staff (including alleged discrimination). The landlord’s complaints policy notes that the word ‘complaint’ does not need to be used in order for a communication to be treated as such.
The landlord’s compensation and remedies policy acknowledges that providing a fair and proportionate remedy is an essential part of successfully resolving a dispute. The landlord will consider paying compensation in a number of circumstances, including if it has not met agreed standards of service and if it has not handled a complaint properly. It will also consider other forms of redress, such as an apology, an explanation for shortfalls in service, and details of any learning or action taken to improve the service (such as staff training). In calculating compensation, its policy states that it recognises where the distress or inconvenience caused by a failure in service has been compounded by a vulnerability, such as disability, and seeks to reflect the additional detriment caused as a result of this. Compensation is paid according to the level of disruption or failure, with payments of up to £650 for time, trouble and inconvenience, and up to £300 for poor complaint handling.
In January 2023 the landlord introduced an unreasonable communication policy. This sets out the behaviours that it considers to be unreasonable, including unreasonable demands, unreasonable levels of contact, and refusal to cooperate. In response, it may take informal actions (such as reaching an agreement with a customer about times and frequency of contact) and implement formal restrictions (such as limiting contact to email, telephone or letter). Customers will be informed of any restrictions in writing, including the length of time they will be in place. Restrictions should not be in place indefinitely – between 2 and 6 months is suggested – and customers have the opportunity to appeal them within a specified period.

Summary of events

Prior to the events of this investigation, the landlord placed restrictions on the resident’s contact with it. This was due to the volume of correspondence received and the impact on the landlord’s resources. The restrictions meant that the resident was unable to contact the landlord by phone, except to report emergency repairs. The Ombudsman has not had the opportunity to inspect any contemporaneous correspondence or other records relating to the restrictions implemented, which the landlord says were a voluntary agreement between the resident and its housing officer at the time.
On 7 April 2022 the resident reported noise and other ASB involving her neighbour to the landlord. She also noted her physical difficulties with written contact. The landlord provided diary sheets for the resident to record ASB incidents, and said it would review the contact restrictions that were in place. It told the resident that if she could obtain a letter from a medical professional regarding her communication requirements, it would update its records.
On 20 April 2022 the resident informed the landlord of further incidents involving her neighbour. These related to fencing, car fumes entering her property, and her neighbour’s CCTV cameras, which the resident said were angled towards her property. She requested an urgent callback to “work through a plan of action”, as she said the issues had been going on for some time. An internal email by the landlord the same day stated that the resident was “well aware” of the contact restrictions, and that it would email her within its required timeframe of 10 working days. Any reply sent was not supplied to this Service.
Some weeks later, on 15 July 2022, the resident sent the landlord details of more incidents. These related to noise from children screaming at 8pm, smoke from a BBQ positioned close to the resident’s fence, and verbal abuse from the neighbour’s partner. As well as providing a written summary of the incidents, the resident sent video evidence and noted that smoke could constitute a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s emails of 15 July 2022. On 20 July 2022 it informed her that it had received reports of her allegedly harassing the neighbour by staring and making false allegations to the police. It said it wanted to give the resident the opportunity to respond to the allegations “so we do not have to assume that you are responsible for what happened and take further action”. The same day, the resident told the landlord she refuted the complaint. She provided her version of events, noting that her grandson was nonverbal and communicated by making sounds and noises rather than words. She disputed that her grandchildren were making noise at 11pm and said that, while she appreciated her neighbour was allowed to have BBQs, she felt the BBQ should not be near the fence. She also provided further recordings. The landlord confirmed receipt of the resident’s evidence on 21 July 2022, saying it had updated her file.
On 27 July 2022 the landlord requested a police disclosure relating to the resident’s case. It then liaised with the police regarding the disclosure between 17 and 22 August 2022. The police did not provide the information requested, and the landlord chased this on 30 August 2022 and 16 September 2022. It also escalated the disclosure internally on 11 October 2022.
On 19 August 2022 the resident contacted this Service for assistance. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord the same day, asking it to log a complaint by 26 August 2022 and to provide a response by 12 September 2022.
On 22 August 2022 the landlord told the resident it was aware that it still had around 10 of her emails to respond to, and while she said some were urgent, it did not consider them to be urgent. It therefore advised her to be patient. The resident replied the same day, stating that the landlord had threatened her with eviction based on “malicious false allegations” involving her grandson and had then refused to discuss the matter further. She said the landlord had initially claimed her grandson had been swearing, which was not the case, but then said he was shouting and screaming. She felt the landlord was “persecuting a disabled child”, and she was entitled to a response.
On 23 August 2022 the landlord logged the resident’s complaint. It summarised the key issues as follows, based on correspondence with this Service:
1. ASB from the resident’s neighbour;
2. The contact restrictions put on the resident, allegedly without explanation;
3. The landlord’s allegedly discriminatory conduct towards the resident;
4. The landlord’s threats to evict the resident and her family, due to the impact of her disabled grandson’s behaviour on the neighbour.
On 1 September 2022 the landlord informed the resident that it had received reports and recordings of her dog barking, including an incident on 16 August 2022 when her dog was reportedly barking between 9.05am and 10.24am. It asked her to comment on the allegations.
On 12 September 2022 the resident informed this Service that she had not received any acknowledgement of her complaint from the landlord. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord again on 13 September 2022, requesting a response to the complaint by 21 September 2022.
On 15 September 2022 the landlord replied to the resident’s email of 22 August 2022, relating to allegations that the resident believed to be malicious. It said it had already responded to a similar enquiry, and advised her to read this response if she had not already done so.
On 22 September 2022 the resident told this Service that she had still not received any acknowledgement or response to her complaint from the landlord. On 26 September 2022 she submitted a complaint to the landlord via its website. This stated that:
1. Her grandson had been the target of false and malicious allegations, amounting to harassment and disability-based discrimination. She and her daughter had reported the harassment and discrimination to the police.
2. Her neighbour had sent video footage and audio recordings to the landlord. The investigating police officer had been denied access to the footage and recordings by the landlord. The resident believed that the landlord should be working in partnership with the police to resolve crime and ASB, and that it had no lawful right to deny the police access to evidence.
3. She believed the landlord had also discriminated against her grandson. It initially said her grandson was “swearing, shouting and screaming” and using the trampoline at 11pm and 6am. She felt these allegations were absurd. When she questioned the landlord over email, it said “nobody mentioned swearing” and that the allegation was of shouting and screaming. According to the resident, it then “gaslit” her by saying that if it had used the word ‘swearing’, this was a “misuse of words”.
4. She felt the landlord was siding with the neighbour and was biased against her family. She said that it addressed the neighbour’s reports and “disregarded and belittled” her own. She also said it disregarded both her grandsons’ disabilities.
5. The landlord had threatened her and her family with eviction due to the allegations against her.
6. The landlord did not act appropriately when she requested copies of footage and recordings. Its housing officer denied a Subject Access Request (SAR) she made, rather than referring it to its SAR team.
7. The landlord did not contact her when it said it would, and had not updated her regarding the progress of her ASB case since February or March 2022.
8. To resolve the complaint, she wanted the landlord to:
  1. Investigate its housing officer’s misconduct and mishandling of her case;
  2. Release the requested evidence to the police;
  3. Update her regarding ASB reports she had made.
The landlord emailed the resident on 28 September 2022, explaining that she already had an open stage 1 complaint about its handling of her ASB case and alleged discrimination by its staff. It said it was unable to open a duplicate complaint regarding these matters, but it had followed up on the response that was due. It noted that its stage 1 responder was “a little behind at the moment” and would be responding as soon as possible. In relation to the police’s request for video footage, it said there had been some confusion in relation to this, as it thought the police were asking it to provide the footage to the resident. It had therefore advised that the request would need to go through its SAR process. It apologised that it had misunderstood the request, and confirmed that it would clarify what was being requested so that the information could be provided to the police as appropriate.
On 30 September 2022, following contact with the resident on 29 September 2022, the Ombudsman sent the landlord a ‘final request for action’ requiring it to provide a response to the resident’s complaint by 7 October 2022. The landlord then issued its stage 1 response the same day (30 September 2022), noting in its cover email that it had not realised a second complaint had been assigned to the same responder and that it would respond to this the following week.
Its stage 1 response stated that:
1. It had taken longer than normal to complete its investigation into the issues raised, and it apologised for the delay.
2. It understood the resident’s complaint related to disability discrimination as part of its ASB investigation, contact restrictions which the resident felt were unjustified, and threats of eviction. It understood the resolution she sought was an apology.
3. To investigate the complaint, it had looked at its contact records and discussed the case with the relevant housing officer.
4. It could see that its housing officer had managed the case well, but had not been able to verify some incidents reported as the police had not responded to its requests. It was imperative that it received this information from the police, and it had asked the housing officer to chase for a response.
5. The resident’s neighbour had made a number of counter-allegations which it had an obligation to investigate. It had to obtain both parties’ versions of events in order to make an informed decision and resolve the matter. Its housing officer would continue to keep the resident informed regarding progress of its investigation.
6. It found that it had adhered to its ASB procedure in managing the case. It was satisfied that it had carried out a thorough, fair and impartial investigation into reports made by both the resident and her neighbour.
7. It agreed that it had restricted the resident’s communication with it without justification “for some time”. It also found that it had failed to follow its internal procedures for doing so. It sincerely apologised for this. It had arranged for its records to be corrected, and it confirmed there was now no flag or alert on the resident’s file relating to contact restrictions. It had a robust procedure in place to prevent a similar issue from happening again.
8. Since the restrictions were put in place due to the resident’s level of contact becoming unmanageable and inhibiting its ability to assist other residents, it would be grateful if she could bear this in mind going forwards.
9. It had written to the resident on 2 occasions between July and September 2022 regarding allegations made by the resident’s neighbour. However, it could not find any evidence that it implied she would be evicted. Eviction was a last resort and reserved for the most extreme ASB cases. It apologised if it gave the resident the impression she was at risk of eviction, and confirmed that this was not the case currently.
10. It had found no evidence of discrimination in its handling of the ASB investigation. If the resident had any evidence to support this claim, it asked her to provide this for review.
11. It offered compensation of £150, comprising:
  1. £100 for “discretionary inconvenience caused” in connection with its contact restrictions;
  2. £50 for its delayed response to the complaint.
On 3 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord by phone and asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord’s customer services told her that an email had been sent to the relevant officer regarding this. On 4 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord’s stage 1 responder, noting that she had requested escalation of her complaint the previous day and that she would provide her reasons for dissatisfaction separately. On 5 October 2022 the landlord’s stage 1 responder informed the resident that they were unable to work due to an IT issue. The same day, the resident listed the issues that she felt remained outstanding, as follows:
1. She no longer felt able to communicate with her housing officer because of how discriminatory they were towards her personally.
2. Despite the landlord confirming her contact restrictions were lifted on 30 September 2022, when she subsequently called to speak to her housing officer they refused to take the call. They told the calltaker that all communication must be in writing, and that the resident should know this. This left her feeling “humiliated, degraded and distressed”.
3. She requested an update on her ASB case, as she had not yet received one.
4. She asked what action the landlord intended to take in relation to her neighbour’s CCTV cameras, which covered her front and back gardens and driveway. She believed the landlord had not reported data breaches to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) as it was supposed to.
On 10 October 2022 the landlord logged a second complaint for the resident, which it summarised as follows:
1. The resident’s neighbour had recorded images of the resident’s grandson, and the landlord had not released the images to the resident when she made a SAR.
2. The resident’s neighbour was recording the resident and her property via CCTV, and the landlord was not acting on this.
3. The resident felt her housing officer was biased against her and did not act on her reports or keep her updated. The housing officer also falsely accused the resident’s grandson of swearing.
4. The landlord had not investigated high fence panels erected by the neighbour, for which the resident believed the landlord gave permission.
5. The resident’s neighbour made a malicious complaint to the local authority about the resident’s dog, which the landlord did not act on.
Internal correspondence by the landlord on 18 October 2022 noted that it had provided all the data available in relation to the SAR, but it had been unable to download some images and recordings via an app. The correspondence also confirmed that it had used the word ‘swearing’ in error, and that it had previously declined to provide photos and recordings made by the neighbour to the resident without the neighbour’s permission.
On 19 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and this Service to say that the situation involving her neighbour had got worse. She said the neighbour was now taking photos and videos of her family, some of which were of her grandson semi-clothed, and pointed out that it was illegal to hold indecent images of children. She requested an update following an internal meeting about the CCTV. The landlord said it would respond within 10 working days. An internal email by the landlord the same say noted that the resident’s ASB case updates had been put on hold pending the investigation of her complaints.
On 21 October 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s second complaint; however, this was sent by post rather than email, and so was not immediately received by the resident. The response stated that:
1. It understood the resident was seeking correct and unbiased management of her ASB complaint, and correct management of SARs going forward.
2. It was conducting an internal review into the resident’s SAR, which would consider the images that were not released. Its data protection manager would respond to the resident shortly regarding the outcome of the review. It was also arranging additional training for its housing officers on how SARs should be managed.
3. It understand the resident’s neighbour had a doorbell camera at the front of their property. These were very common, and the use of doorbell cameras for domestic use did not breach data protection law. It was therefore unable to require the neighbour to remove the camera. The resident could seek further advice on this from the ICO.
4. It was investigating a camera at the rear of the neighbour’s property in conjunction with the police.
5. It had already responded to the resident regarding its housing officer’s conduct, and it agreed with its previous stage 1 findings. It accepted that its officer misused the word ‘swearing’ when they meant to say ‘shouting’, and they apologised for this at the time. It apologised again if offence was taken.
6. Its records showed that the resident’s neighbour requested permission to raise their side of the fence earlier in the year, and it granted this.
7. It was unable to do anything about the complaint that was made to the local authority, as it was made to an external organisation and it would not be possible to prove malicious intent.
8. It was satisfied that it had carried out a thorough, fair and impartial investigation into the issues raised, and it did not uphold the complaint.
On 22 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord. She said it had told her it would provide its second stage 1 response the previous day, but did not do so. She raised a number of further concerns, including:
1. Her concerns did not relate to her neighbour’s doorbell camera, but to cameras positioned in the neighbour’s upstairs windows. These may have captured images of her grandson naked, and of her daughter breastfeeding.
2. Because the cameras recorded sound, she did not feel able to have conversations in her garden.
3. Her daughter had also had to buy a membership to an indoor trampolining park, as an occupational therapist had recommended her grandson used a trampoline to strengthen his muscles, but she and her daughter felt it was unsafe for him to use the one in her garden due to the cameras.
4. In a historical case involving the resident and another neighbour, the resident acted as the landlord’s witness to obtain an injunction requiring removal of the neighbour’s CCTV cameras. She did not see the difference between that case and the current case, and asked if the landlord intended to seek an injunction against her current neighbour.
5. She had not been consulted regarding the increased height of her neighbour’s fence, which affected the ‘rule of light’ in her living room.
The landlord replied on 24 October 2022 and explained that it had posted its response to the resident the previous week. It also re-sent the response by email. It said the response covered the further points raised by the resident, and reiterated that it was looking into the issue of the neighbour’s rear cameras.
After receiving the stage 1 response, the resident told the landlord that she was “thoroughly dissatisfied” with it. She asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2, along with her previous complaint, which she was shocked to learn had not yet been escalated. She again clarified that it was the cameras in her neighbour’s windows that she was concerned about, and said she would be “happy to state the full grounds for escalation”. On 25 October 2022 the landlord asked the resident which aspects of its recent response she was unhappy with, and thanked her for elaborating regarding the CCTV issue. On 26 October 2022 the resident said she would provide her grounds for escalation in due course, and asked the landlord not to interfere with the CCTV issue as there was an active police investigation.
On 27 October 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident. Its letter stated that it had been made aware she was making “unfounded police reports” against her neighbour. It explained that a report may be considered unfounded if the person making it “has no clear intention to access the information or is malicious in intent and is using the report or complaint to harass an organisation, [its] tenants and external contractors with no real purpose other than to cause disruption”. It asked the resident to be mindful when making reports to the police, as “making unfounded reports will not help to resolve the matter”.
The resident contacted the landlord in response to its letter on 31 October 2022. She took issue with the content of the letter, which she described as “hostile, offensive, discriminatory, biased and of a harassing nature” and which she said had caused her alarm and distress as well as impacting on her mental and physical wellbeing. She said her reports to the police were not unfounded as she had evidence to support them. She also told the landlord it had no authority to tell her what she could and could not report. She felt it was “playing judge and jury” and unfairly trying to silence her.
On 1 November 2022 the landlord told the resident it was unable to confirm whether it approved the installation of her neighbour’s CCTV cameras, as this was not personal data relating to her and therefore was not disclosable under GDPR. In reply to the resident’s question, it advised that it had discussed the CCTV issue with the resident’s neighbour as part of its ASB investigation, but it noted her request for it not to discuss the matter with the neighbour further and it would not raise it again. On 2 November 2022 the resident chased the landlord’s response to her email about the letter she received on 27 October 2022, noting that “given the seriousness of the allegations I should not have to wait a considerable time for a response”. The same day, the landlord asked the resident to allow it time to look into the issues raised and respond. It said it always acknowledged emails within 3 working days and responded within 10 working days.
On 6 November 2022 the landlord issued a formal apology to the resident for the letter it sent her on 27 October 2022. It said it had reviewed the letter and confirmed it should not have been sent. It agreed that it was not in a position to assume that the resident’s reports to the police were untrue, and that in any case, this was a matter for the police to address. It said it had formally rescinded the letter, and had put measures in place to prevent “these errors” from happening again. These included speaking to the staff involved and requesting that any future correspondence to the resident was reviewed by its community safety leads before being posted.
On 26 November 2022 the landlord carried out a management review of the resident’s ASB case. Around this time, the officer who had been dealing with the case left their role and a different officer was allocated. Actions were set for the new officer to complete all outstanding tasks, create a chronology of incidents, complete police disclosure and carry out an ASB survey.
On 23 December 2022 the Ombudsman sent a final request for the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaints by 6 January 2023. Internal correspondence by the landlord noted that the resident had not yet provided her reasons for escalating her second complaint. However, it provided both stage 2 responses on 6 January 2023. The first of these stated that:
1. It had investigated whether its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint regarding her ASB complaint and SAR was fair and reasonable.
2. To do this, it had looked at its records and discussed the case with relevant staff.
3. The resident was correctly advised at stage 1 that her SAR would be investigated separately in the form of an internal review.
4. It repeated its previous advice regarding the SAR review outcome and staff training, doorbell camera issue, misuse of the word ‘swearing’ by its housing officer, permission for the resident’s neighbour to raise their fence, and the complaint to the local authority.
5. It was satisfied that it had carried out a thorough, fair and impartial investigation into the issues raised. However, there were delays in the progression of these matters, including after the resident’s complaint was logged. It apologised that she had to approach the Ombudsman for intervention.
6. It had recently carried out training and hired new staff to help manage an increase in cases. It expected that its complaints process would be smoother going forward, and its communication improved. It was sorry for its shortcomings and for the fact that its level of customer service fell short.
7. It offered the maximum amount of £100 in compensation for its complaint handling issues. It assessed this to be fair and reasonable and in line with its policies.
The second stage 2 response, produced by the same responder, stated that:
1. It had investigated whether its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint regarding alleged discrimination and contact restrictions was fair and reasonable. It had found that it was.
2. It had structured its response according to the points that the Ombudsman advised were outstanding and should be focused on.
3. It had not found any evidence of discrimination, which was defined as “the unfair or prejudicial treatment of people and groups based on characteristics”. It had not seen any indication of such motivation by its housing officer. If the resident had evidence to support this, it asked her to provide it so that it could investigate further.
4. It was clear that at times the level of service from its housing officer fell short, and it was very sorry for this. The officer in question no longer covered the resident’s patch, so she would not need to liaise with them again. The resident’s experience had been fed back to the officer and to management.
5. It was not appropriate for the resident’s housing officer to refuse to take her call after the contact restrictions were lifted, and it was sorry this happened. It also noted that a letter the officer sent about police reports was not appropriate. The resident had received an apology from the landlord’s regional head of service in relation to the letter.
6. It had reviewed the application of contact restrictions under its new unreasonable complainant policy, which had not yet been signed off. This policy restricted the ability of staff to implement such restrictions, and ensured a fair process in the assessment and application of such steps.
7. ASB cases in the resident’s area were now the remit of a new housing officer. The resident could contact them by calling its customer hub. It had also asked the new housing officer to contact her to discuss her case.
8. It repeated its previous advice regarding the SAR review process and associated staff training, and the doorbell camera issue.
9. It was satisfied that it had carried out a thorough, fair and impartial investigation into the issues raised. However, as before, it accepted and apologised that there were delays in the progression of these matters. Some of the actions taken and overall service delivered by the resident’s housing officer fell short, and it was sorry for this.
10. It offered increased compensation of £400, comprising:
  1. £300 for discretionary inconvenience caused (including time, trouble and inconvenience);
  2. £100 for complaint handling.
The resident informed the landlord that she was dissatisfied with its stage 2 responses on 27 January 2023.

Post complaint

On 16 February 2023, following a conversation with the resident on 7 February 2023, the landlord thanked her for raising further concerns. It asked her to complete more diary sheets and confirm whether there had been any recent incidents by 24 February 2023.
In March 2023 the police made an application for a full closure order in respect of the resident’s property. The landlord attended court and gave evidence. The application was rejected by the court.
On 26 April 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to inform her that it had closed its ASB case. It said this was because there was “insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations made”. It noted that the neighbour’s CCTV camera – which the resident objected to – was no longer operational, and that the resident had not provided any diary sheets relating to recent incidents.
On 8 June 2023 the resident informed this Service that she had received a warning letter from the landlord, relating to further “unfounded allegations”. She said she felt “distressed, shaken and upset”, as she had not been consulted or made aware of any allegations before the warning was sent. She also said that the landlord had closed her ASB case due to a lack of evidence, but she had not been given contact details for the officer dealing with her case in order to submit evidence. She described an incident that occurred on 4 June 2023, which upset her disabled grandson and resulted in police attendance.
On 21 November 2023 the resident told this Service that her neighbour had moved out of their property on 11 November 2023. She said that on or around this date, her neighbour’s partner was abusive and threatening towards her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Under paragraph 42 of the Scheme, there are certain aspects of complaints which the Ombudsman may not consider. Under paragraph 42(a), the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member landlord’s complaints procedure. Events that postdate the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, such as the warning letter issued to the resident in June 2023, are therefore outside the scope of this investigation. The resident may choose to make a further complaint to the landlord regarding such matters, which she may subsequently refer to this Service if she is dissatisfied with its response.
Under paragraph 42(e), the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings. The police’s closure order application, in which the landlord participated, is therefore also outside this investigation’s remit. Likewise, the Ombudsman does not have the authority to make a finding in relation to the resident’s reports to the police regarding the landlord’s actions, or any complaints she may have pursued regarding the police’s response to her reports.
Under paragraph 42(j), the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which fall within the jurisdiction of another ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. The resident’s complaint regarding data protection and the landlord’s handling of her Subject Access Request falls within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office. The landlord has previously signposted the resident to the ICO for advice.
For clarity, the current investigation focuses on events that occurred between 7 April 2022 and 6 January 2023, although appropriate consideration has been given to relevant earlier and later events.

ASB reported by the resident

When the resident first reported ASB on 7 April 2022, it was appropriate for the landlord to support her in producing evidence. However, as she also mentioned having difficulty writing (discussed in more detail below), it should have considered alternative evidence gathering methods to diary sheets. For example, as well as arranging contact via a representative, it could have explored the possibility of sending voice notes, other technological solutions, or scheduling calls or visits at an agreed frequency. For the purposes of this investigation, it is assumed that the resident agreed for her daughter to assist her in completing diary sheets or otherwise submitting written evidence.
The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s second report of ASB on 20 April 2022. There is no evidence that it carried out an assessment of risk or vulnerability in April 2022, or that it agreed a plan of action with the resident as stated in its policy. When the resident requested an urgent callback, the landlord was dismissive of her obvious distress and said it would contact her within its standard timeframe of 10 working days. As well as not being informed by a risk assessment, its approach was not tailored to the resident’s personal circumstances and needs. It has not been possible for the Ombudsman to assess correspondence not provided for review, such as any email reply to the resident’s report on 20 April 2022 – although the absence of such documents suggests either that no reply was sent, or that the landlord’s record keeping was ineffective. It is possible that the landlord’s unsupportive and delayed response to the resident’s reports in April 2022 contributed to the neighbour issues worsening over the following months.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s further reports of ASB in July 2022 was unsatisfactory. It appears that it did not respond to emails she sent on 15 July 2022, although it did contact her regarding counter-allegations (discussed below) shortly afterwards. While it is noted that the landlord was awaiting the outcome of a police disclosure request, it did not take sufficient steps to follow this up within a reasonable period. The disclosure request was made on 27 July 2022 and chased in August and September 2022, but not escalated internally until October 2022, and remained on a list of outstanding tasks on 26 November 2022. If the landlord’s position was that the lack of disclosure was preventing it from addressing the reported ASB, it should have done more to progress the request, either by escalating internally sooner, by liaising with direct points of contact it evidently had within the police, or even by escalating within the police (using telephone if email was ineffective).
The communication issues between the landlord and the police had additional impacts on the progress of the resident’s case. When the police requested copies of evidence submitted to the landlord, the landlord misinterpreted the request and thought the police wanted it to provide copies of the neighbour’s evidence to the resident. Rather than clarifying this point, the landlord recommended that the resident submit a SAR, resulting in the SAR process being followed unnecessarily. This caused further delays and confusion. While the Ombudsman has not had the opportunity to inspect correspondence between the landlord and police on this topic, and cannot therefore assess the source of the misunderstanding, the landlord would be expected to identify an unusual police request and draw on the relationships it had with local police officers in order to resolve such queries promptly.
The landlord’s email to the resident regarding her ASB reports on 22 August 2022 was unsympathetic. It told her that while she considered her emails to be urgent, it did not agree, and it refused to discuss certain matters further. Despite the resident’s obviously growing distress, there is no evidence that the landlord offered any support referrals, liaised with other involved agencies (besides the police), considered mediation, or acknowledged the impact of the situation on the resident and her family. Following an initial acknowledgement, it did not respond to the resident’s email of 22 August 2022 until 15 September 2022 – 17 working days later. Its eventual response was also unhelpful, advising her to read its previous response to a similar enquiry rather than addressing the new points made.
When discussing incidents involving the neighbour with the resident, the landlord was rightly mindful of its data protection responsibilities. The Ombudsman has had sight of correspondence between the landlord and neighbour as well as between the landlord and resident, and while the neighbour’s information cannot be discussed for reasons of confidentiality, there is evidence that the level of information shared and the language used was not always consistent between parties. Though no significant transgressions have been identified, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s approach was not always fully impartial. Its correspondence referred to the resident’s “unfounded reports” and to “confronting” her. From the internal and external communications reviewed, the landlord seems to have based its approach on previous events, assumed that a new report would be the same as another similar one, and at times exercised an overly cautious approach to information sharing that meant it could not update the resident in a meaningful way.
In summary, the landlord’s response to the resident’s ASB reports was inflexible, ineffective, and characterised by confusion and delays. It rarely acknowledged reports within the 2 working days stipulated in its policy, and when it did, this was often an acknowledgement rather than a full response. It did not agree a clear plan of action with the resident, offer reassurance, update her regularly, or document any monitoring of the level of risk despite regular manager case reviews. There is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of her change of housing officer (other than in its complaint response) or explain how she could contact the new officer. The resident had been able to contact her previous housing officer by direct email, and if this method of contact was no longer available, the landlord should have informed her of this.
The landlord’s reasons for closing the resident’s case, 11 weeks after the last reported incident and 6 weeks after it last spoke to her, were questionable: a camera she was concerned about was not currently working; she had not provided diary sheets, despite telling the landlord she struggled to write; and she had not otherwise reported any recent incidents, despite not having contact details for her housing officer. This suggested that the case closure was due to a technicality, and perhaps to the landlord’s reluctance to attempt further interventions, rather than to a genuine resolution of the issues or exhaustion of all available options. An overall finding of maladministration has therefore been made in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

ASB reported against the resident

When the landlord made the resident aware of allegations against her on 20 July 2022, it was appropriate for it to give her the opportunity to comment on them. However, the wording of its communication was insensitive: it asked the resident to respond to the allegations “so we do not have to assume you are responsible … and take further action”. This implied that if the resident did not deny the allegations, the landlord would infer that she had behaved in the way alleged and take action against her. Its language was also non-neutral, referring to “calling the police over 20 times making false allegations” rather than, for example, “making over 20 police reports”. This communication understandably caused the resident to question the landlord’s impartiality and the integrity of its evidence-based approach from the outset.
On 1 September 2022 the landlord again offered the resident the chance to comment on allegations made against her. These related to dog barking, which the landlord went on to describe as a “noise nuisance complaint”. This term was misleading, as the landlord’s ASB policy states that it does not consider noise from pets such as dog barking to be a breach of its tenancy conditions. The policy clarifies that noise at unreasonable hours may be investigated (with “unreasonable hours” being defined by the landlord as between 11pm and 7am or 8am), but the reported noise occurred just after 9am. The landlord’s communication was therefore accusatory, did not refer to relevant policies or agreements, and missed an opportunity to create conditions conducive to discussion and problem-solving.
It is apparent that the resident became distrustful of the landlord as a result of its handling of ASB reports made by herself and her neighbour, and her perception of preferential treatment being given to the neighbour. While her SAR cannot be discussed in detail, as explained under ‘scope of investigation’ above, it is relevant to note that the landlord’s sharing of the neighbour’s evidence with the resident contributed to this distrust and ultimately generated further conflict. It also impacted on the relationships between all parties. To rebuild lost trust, it would have been helpful for the landlord to be transparent in its decision making when responding to the resident’s complaint. While it demonstrated this in some respects, it did not mention an app issue (referred to in internal correspondence on 18 October 2022) which prevented it from accessing some photo/video evidence itself. This was a matter of discretion, and it may have had good reason not to mention the issue, but inclusion of such detail could have increased the personalisation and authenticity of the response.
The resident has told this Service that the landlord threatened to evict her and her family as a result of the ASB reported. The Ombudsman has not had sight of any written communications in which eviction proceedings were mentioned. The landlord also gave assurance in its first stage 1 complaint response (on 30 September 2022) that eviction was a last resort and was not being pursued. While the Ombudsman appreciates the worry that such a perception would have caused to the resident, findings must be based on the documentary evidence available, and so no finding can be made in relation to this matter.
The resident also took issue with the landlord referring to her as a perpetrator of ASB. It is generally accepted that when a report of ASB is made to a landlord (or other agency), the subject of the allegation would be considered an ‘alleged perpetrator’ for recording purposes. It follows that the resident would be an alleged perpetrator in reports made by her neighbour, whereas the neighbour would be the alleged perpetrator in reports made by the resident. At the same time, both parties would be recorded as having the role of victims and/or witnesses in their own reports. As there is evidence within the landlord’s records of the abbreviation ‘AP’ (alleged perpetrator) being used correctly, the Ombudsman finds no issue with the landlord’s actions in this respect.
When the landlord mistakenly referred to the resident’s nonverbal grandson “swearing” when it meant “shouting”, it was right to apologise and to offer an explanation for its error. The Ombudsman understands that this caused offence to the resident, but accepts that it was an isolated and unintentional misuse of words. The apology and explanation provided are therefore deemed to have been sufficient, although the importance of accurate and specific descriptions of alleged behaviour in ASB cases is highlighted.
A more significant failure was the letter sent to the resident on 27 October 2022, in which the landlord said she had been making “unfounded” reports against her neighbour to the police. The landlord’s explanation of what it considered to be unfounded reports was confusing, referring to reports with “no clear intention to access information” and to harassment of organisations and external contractors as well as tenants. This confusion was apparent from the resident’s reply to the letter. It is unclear whether the landlord would have apologised and rescinded the letter if the resident had not strongly objected to it. While its decision to rescind the letter was appropriate, it took a week to do so, and in the meantime referred the resident to its standard response time of 10 working days. It therefore did not adequately recognise the impact of its action and delay on the resident, who was clearly upset by the “serious allegations” made against her.
It is of further concern that – from the internal correspondence reviewed – the letter did not appear to be the result of a single misjudged action by the resident’s housing officer, but instead was instructed to be sent by a manager. In view of this, and the wording referred to above, it is possible that the letter was intended to deter the resident from making reports to the police about the landlord, as well as the neighbour. The issuing and delayed rescinding of the letter were unacceptable, and in the Ombudsman’s view, an apology alone constituted insufficient redress. A finding of maladministration has therefore been made in relation to the landlord’s handling of ASB reports made against the resident, taking into account its letter as well as its earlier accusatory, heavy-handed and confused responses.

Restricted contact

It is unclear from the information provided exactly when the contact restrictions imposed on the resident began. An email from the resident to this Service, dated 21 October 2022, stated that the landlord had “acted unlawfully and discriminated against my disability for just under/approximately 3 years”. The landlord’s records made reference to the restrictions in July 2020, and an internal email dated 6 May 2022 stated that a contact related request form should have been completed over 2 years earlier. It is therefore assumed that the restrictions, preventing the resident from contacting the landlord’s neighbourhoods service by phone other than to report an emergency repair, commenced in 2019 or 2020. While limited conclusions can be drawn in relation to the introduction of the restrictions, due to the length of time that has passed and the scarcity of contemporaneous records, a period of between 2 and 3 years without review was excessive. Putting no end date on the restrictions at the point of introduction – even if the resident had not had a disability affecting her contact requirements – was also disproportionate.
It is again unknown to the Ombudsman when the resident first informed the landlord that she struggled to write and type. For the purposes of this investigation, the first reference to this was on 7 April 2022, when the resident reported ASB and also drew the landlord’s attention to her disability. Its response was unsatisfactory: it continued to require the resident to complete written diary sheets, and it put the onus on her to provide medical evidence of her condition. While it said it would review the contact restrictions, there is no evidence that it carried out a thorough review or that it updated the resident after doing so. An internal email dated 18 May 2022 noted that the landlord did not have “sufficient grounds” to prevent the resident from contacting it by phone, and that it had not gained approval for the restrictions from its Unreasonable Behaviour Panel, but as “the current informal arrangement appears to be working well … we can stick with this”. It subsequently permitted the restrictions to remain in place for a further 4-5 months.
The landlord later accepted that the restrictions were inappropriate, and removed them. However, despite the restrictions being removed from 30 September 2022, the resident’s housing officer declined to speak to her by phone on 4 October 2022, citing the restrictions as the reason. This indicated either a lack of effective record keeping, preventing the housing officer from being aware the restrictions were no longer in effect, or obstructive conduct by the landlord. Though the landlord’s subsequent repeated apology was adequate, its offer of compensation did not reflect the inconvenience and disadvantage caused to the resident as a result of the restrictions. This consisted of £100 at stage 1 (consistent with ‘minor disruption’); at stage 2, it was unclear whether the increased award of £300 for “discretionary inconvenience including time, trouble and inconvenience” related to the contact restrictions alone, or whether it included other aspects of the complaint. Since no breakdown was provided for the £300, it is assumed to relate to the single issue, and was therefore consistent with ‘moderate disruption’. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the criteria for ‘extensive disruption’ apply: “A service failure has occurred, there has been a high impact … and/or extended time to complete actions, and failure to communicate or follow procedure.”
A finding of maladministration has been made, due to the landlord’s inappropriate implementation of contact restrictions; the length and open-ended nature of the restrictions; the landlord’s dismissive response to the resident’s concerns about the impact of the restrictions on her; the additional impact, known to the landlord, of the restrictions on a disabled resident for a further 6-month period; the landlord’s poor internal communication in relation to the restrictions being lifted; and its insufficient initial and final offers of redress.
Because the landlord has now introduced an unreasonable communication policy, which provides guidance on the circumstances, type and length of any contact restrictions, no order has been made in relation to this. However, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to consider adding a section to the policy to explain what volume of contact it considers unreasonable (for example, in the context of ASB cases where a resident may need to report frequent incidents).

Poor conduct and discriminatory behaviour

Poor conduct

The landlord agreed that the service delivered by its housing officer fell short of the expected standard, and apologised for this. This was satisfactory. Besides the issues addressed above (delayed responses, inappropriate sharing of information, insensitively worded communications, and misuse of the word ‘swearing’), which will not be duplicated, the landlord’s officer did not make sufficient efforts to understand the impact of the ASB on the resident’s family, display empathy, or seek advice from partner agencies they knew to be involved. The officer also treated the resident in what she felt to be a biased, disinterested, and at times patronising way, such as when they refused to speak to her on the phone on 4 October 2022. While the Ombudsman cannot fully assess the content of phone conversations for which no transcripts exist, the resident’s frustration regarding inconsistent advice and the tone/language she described is appreciated.
On the basis of the information provided and timeframes involved, the Ombudsman does not find the landlord’s response to safeguarding related matters – such as the CCTV footage of the resident’s grandson and daughter – to have been unreasonable. There is evidence that it signposted the resident to relevant organisations, such as the police and ICO, when she expressed concerns.

Discriminatory behaviour

The landlord has an obligation under the Equality Act 2010 to consider how its policies and decisions affect people with characteristics that are protected under the Act, including disability. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether or not the landlord has been discriminatory in its treatment of the resident and her family, as that is a matter for the courts. Instead, the Ombudsman can look at whether the landlord responded appropriately and sensitively to the resident’s concerns about discrimination, and whether it followed good practice.
The landlord commits in its ASB policy to tackling discrimination and treating customers according to their needs. Its other policies also include sections on equality, diversity and inclusion, which state its commitment to supporting those who are vulnerable, making its services accessible, and providing reasonable adjustments. It is unclear whether the resident would meet the somewhat limited definition of vulnerability used in the landlord’s vulnerable persons policy, which refers to individuals who are at risk of losing their home or of abuse, neglect or detriment to their wellbeing without support or intervention. The landlord confirmed that the resident was not at risk of losing her home. However, she could be considered to be at risk of detriment to her wellbeing as a result of the ASB from her neighbour (and the landlord’s delayed and ineffective response to it), and also as a result of the contact restrictions unfairly placed upon her, causing her increased disadvantage because of her disability.
The vulnerable persons policy additionally states that the landlord will notify residents if it has assessed them as being vulnerable. There is no indication that it has done this in the resident’s case (although such a notification may have been historical). This is supported by the landlord’s response to the Ombudsman’s request for information, in which it said that it did not have any vulnerabilities “formally flagged as an alert”, but noted that the resident had told it her grandson was vulnerable. It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that, when the landlord provided information to the Ombudsman in September 2023, it had not formally identified the resident herself as being vulnerable. This omission may have prevented any relevant policies and procedures from being invoked during its handling of her ASB case and contact restrictions.
The resident informed the landlord of her disability (a wrist condition affecting her ability to write and type) and those of her grandsons on at least 11 occasions between 7 April 2022 and 1 November 2022. She also told this Service on 21 October 2022 that she had asked the landlord for reasonable adjustments due to her difficulty writing. The landlord made reference to the resident’s household’s disabilities when it logged her complaint on 23 August 2022, in its first stage 1 complaint response on 30 September 2022, and in internal emails on 19 October 2022 and 4 January 2023. It therefore missed at least 15 opportunities to ensure its centralised records reflected these disabilities and the associated impacts/requirements. It also repeatedly failed to make reasonable adjustments, which it had a duty to consider irrespective of any contact restrictions previously deemed appropriate.
The landlord told the resident in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses (on 30 September 2022 and 6 January 2023) that it had found no evidence of discrimination in its handling of her case. However, in both responses it simply stated its conclusion without explaining how it investigated the resident’s concerns about discrimination. It would have been helpful, for example, for it to outline how it had handled noise reports differently when they related to noise by a disabled child. As with the resident’s original request for contact restrictions to be lifted, it instead put the onus on her to produce any evidence of discrimination for it to consider. The landlord had already confirmed that it had reviewed its records and spoken to involved staff as part of its complaint response, so presumably no evidence that the resident could supply would change its position.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the resident’s concerns about discrimination by its staff. This is because, while it cannot be determined that discrimination took place, the landlord did not respond proactively to the resident’s disclosures about her family’s vulnerability, did not update its records, did not accommodate reasonable adjustments that she requested, and did not address her concerns about discrimination in a thorough and meaningful way.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was disorganised and unnecessarily protracted. While it logged the complaint before 26 August 2022, as required by the Ombudsman, it missed the stage 1 response deadlines of 12 September 2022 and 21 September 2022 without explanation. It also did not tell the resident it had logged her complaint. Its delays and poor communication led the resident to resubmit her complaint via the landlord’s website on 26 September 2022. The landlord acknowledged this 2 days later, but its acknowledgement was confusing: it said it already had a duplicate complaint open and that it could not open a further complaint, yet it went on to do so. This resulted in 2 complaints being logged and responded to, ultimately by the same stage 2 responder on the same date, in relation to similar and overlapping issues. The existence of 2 complaints also appeared to confuse the landlord’s staff.
The landlord responded to the resident’s first stage 1 complaint within 27 working days (following a ‘final request for action’ from this Service), and to her second stage 1 complaint within an acceptable 9 working days. However, it disregarded the resident’s requests to escalate her first complaint, meaning that its stage 2 response was provided 66 working days later. Its stage 2 response to her second complaint was also delayed, provided after 51 working days. On all but one occasion, these timeframes exceeded the 10 and 20 working days set out in the landlord’s policy, sometimes by more than 2 or 3 times the stated number of days. It is noted that the resident had indicated she would provide more detailed information about her reasons for escalating her second complaint, and did not subsequently do so before the Ombudsman requested escalation, so the landlord’s delay in escalating the second complaint was more understandable.
Throughout the complaints process, the landlord failed to take simple actions that would have reassured the resident it was dealing with her complaint. For instance, it did not always acknowledge complaints or provide a target response date; it did not inform her in advance if it required more time to respond; where there were delays of weeks or even months, it did not keep her adequately updated; and it posted one of its stage 1 responses to her rather than emailing it, leading her to believe that it had not honoured an agreement. At one point it told the resident its reply to her email would be delayed due to an IT issue, which was good practice, but this represented a delay of 1 day in the context of an overall 5-month complaint period. Improved communication would have had a significant positive impact on the resident’s experience of the process. Conversely, an absence of updates – particularly in combination with the delays and lack of updates in relation to the resident’s ASB case – had the effect of making her feel ignored and deprioritised.
The landlord’s complaint responses themselves were detailed and engaged effectively with the substance of the resident’s complaints. However, the summaries and ‘outcomes sought’ at the beginning of each response did not always reflect the key issues detailed in the resident’s complaint correspondence. While it was positive that compensation was awarded and that this included an award for delayed complaint responses, the overall award was disproportionately low in view of the failures identified, and no breakdown was provided for the “discretionary inconvenience” element at stage 2.
A finding of maladministration has been made in relation to complaint handling, and further compensation ordered to reflect the extent of the above failures.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB from a neighbour;
2. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of ASB reports made against the resident;
3. maladministration by the landlord in its decision to restrict the resident’s contact with its service;
4. maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of poor conduct and discriminatory behaviour by its staff;
5. maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

When the resident reported ASB to the landlord, it delayed in responding or did not respond at all. It was dismissive of her concerns and distress, did not agree a plan of action with her, and did not document regular risk assessments. The landlord did not take sufficient steps to follow up a police disclosure or clarify the purpose of the police’s request for information. Its overall response to the ASB reported by the resident was inflexible, inconsistent with its response to allegations involving the resident, and ineffective. It eventually closed the resident’s ASB case without exploring barriers to progression or alternative resolutions such as mediation.
The landlord’s response to ASB alleged against the resident indicated a lack of total impartiality and at times departed from its policies. It apologised for an isolated error in describing an allegation and for issuing a letter in which it stated the resident had made unfounded reports to the police. However, it delayed in rescinding the letter and did not acknowledge the impact of its action and delay on the resident. Its approach was unduly heavy-handed and caused unnecessary distress to the resident and her family, who were vulnerable.
The landlord placed unacceptable restrictions on the resident’s ability to contact it regarding non-emergency repair matters such as ASB. It did not set an end date for the restrictions, which was disproportionate. After it agreed that the restrictions were inappropriate and removed them, it again refused to speak to the resident using her preferred method. This occurred 6 months after the resident informed it of the additional disadvantage the contact restrictions were causing her due to her disability. Though the landlord apologised, it did not offer sufficient financial redress.
The landlord accepted that the service it delivered was inadequate, and correctly apologised for this. It also responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns about safeguarding. However, it repeatedly missed opportunities to ensure its records reflected the vulnerabilities and disabilities of her household, and failed to give adequate assurance that it had thoroughly investigated her concerns about discrimination.
The landlord delayed in logging the resident’s complaint, and caused confusion by recording 2 complaints in relation to similar and overlapping issues. It did not always acknowledge her complaints and escalation requests, and its response times exceeded those set out in its policy. Despite the delays, it did not keep the resident updated regarding the progress of her complaints, did not address all the outcomes sought, did not offer sufficient redress, and did not provide a detailed breakdown of the compensation awarded.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident for its failures in relation to her ASB case, contact restrictions, discrimination concerns and complaint.
2. Pay the resident £2,900, comprising:
  1. £650 for its delays, poor communication and insufficient action in response to her reports of ASB;
  2. £650 for its inconsistent advice and inappropriate action in response to allegations of ASB made against her, including the letter it sent to her on 27 October 2022;
  3. £650 for its inappropriate and excessive contact restrictions;
  4. £450 for its inadequate response to her concerns about discrimination;
  5. £300 for its complaint handling failures;
  6. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her as a result of its failures, including the time and trouble she invested in pursuing aspects of her ASB case and complaint.

If the £500 offered by the landlord on 6 January 2023 has already been paid to the resident, this should be deducted from the total above, meaning that the difference of £2,400 is now due.

Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord ensures its records reflect the disclosed vulnerabilities of the resident’s household.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its unreasonable communication policy and considers including guidance on the level of communication it considers to be unreasonable in different types of circumstances, such as ASB cases.