Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202213027)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213027

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

29 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 response to the residents reports about:
1. antisocial behaviour.
2. a leak at an upstairs property
3. a neighbour’s subletting.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Policy framework

The landlord’s website sets out its repairs policy. It says in an emergency a resident can call a number 24/7. It says it will deal with flooding if it cannot be contained within 4 hours. It says when the repair is not classified as an emergency, the resident will be asked to call back within normal working hours.
For more general repairs, its policy says it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy states, among other things, that it will consider a range of interventions (eg Acceptable Behaviour Contracts, tenancy support, warning letters) to deter or prevent ASB and where appropriate take legal action. With cases of low risk ASB, including low-level noise nuisance and other issues not presenting any risk to person or property, it says it will investigate within 10 working days. It says it will write to complainants if it is going to close a case.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Stage 1 complaints should be responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints should be responded to within 20 working days.
The above is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code). Of relevance to this determination, the Code also says:
1. The Ombudsman does not believe a third stage is necessary as part of a complaints process but if a landlord believes strongly it requires one, it should set out its reasons as part of the self-assessment. A process with more than 3 stages is not acceptable under any circumstances in the Ombudsman’s view. (section 3.8)
2. Landlords should recognise that putting things right is the first step to repairing and rebuilding the landlord and resident relationship, (section 5.3).
3. Any remedy offered must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result. Factors to consider in formulating a remedy can include, but are not limited to the:
  1. length of time that a situation has been ongoing.
  2. frequency with which something has occurred.
  3. severity of any service failure or omission.
  4. number of different failures.
  5. cumulative impact on the resident.
  6. a resident’s particular circumstances or vulnerabilities, (section 5.6 and 5.7).
The landlord’s Compensation and Goodwill Gesture policy allows for compensation to be paid up to a maximum of £250 where there has been a service failure. A referral can be made to a Service Director to consider whether aspects of the policy should be waived on a discretionary case-by-case basis.

Summary of events

The resident has an assured lifetime tenancy agreement with the landlord. The tenancy, which is joint with his partner, started in December 2020. It is a 1 bed ground floor flat. The resident and his wife have mobility issues. During the material part of this complaint, the resident had concerns about the behaviour of the occupiers in the flat above his.
On 23 August 2021 the landlord’s records show that the resident complained to the landlord about issues with the above flat. The landlord says the issues were “not specified”. An email from the resident to the landlord on that date refers to “…[the upstairs occupants] poor behaviour and total lack of consideration for their neighbours continues.”
The resident further reported that he was told about possible tenancy fraud at the above flat in a conversation on 14 July 2021. He said he was told to ‘hold off’ making a formal complaint as it looked like tenancy fraud and this would be investigated. He said the landlord told him he would be called about this but he did not receive a call.
The resident said he wrote to the landlord again on 28 September 2021 and on 29 September 2021, when he reported a leak into the property from the flat upstairs. He said he was given a work order number with regard to the leak and told that the landlord neighbourhood officer would be in contact. The landlords records also record the resident’s further report and that he said the leak had stopped but there were damp patches present. The resident said he heard nothing more.
On 29 September 2021 the resident called the landlord to report loud banging and noise throughout the night from the flat above.
On 15 October 2021 the landlord told the resident that an operative had attended to investigate the leak but could not get access to the flat above.
On 11 November 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord’s chief customer officer but received no response. He said he forwarded his email again by post on 21 November 2021 with a further covering letter and again, did not receive a response.
On 4 November 2021 the resident called the landlord to report issues with the occupants of the flat above, as well as rubbish left in the communal areas. A note on the landlord’s systems says that the water supply to the flat above was turned off but it does not appear the resident was informed of this step.
The resident said he also called the landlord on 9 November 2021 and was informed that the landlord had written to the tenant above to try and gain access.
On 19 November 2021 the resident again called the landlord to complain about the ongoing leak. Following the call, a note was made on the landlord’s systems setting out how upset the resident had been and asking for a follow up on the leak as soon as possible.
On 26 November 2021 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about 3 issues he considered were unresolved. They were:
1. The unanswered reports about the occupants of the flat above him and their behaviour.
2. Suspected tenancy fraud at the flat upstairs which the landlord said was not being investigated.
3. An outstanding repair to a water leak in the flat upstairs.
The resident set out a chronology of his communications with the landlord since June 2021, when he said he had first called the landlord to complain about the behaviour of the occupants of the flat above. His account of his contact with the landlord up until the point of his formal complaint mostly aligns with the landlord’s records. Essentially, he said that he had contacted the landlord on a number of occasions but had not received return calls or contact about the issues he raised.
He said the landlord had made an appointment to visit the flat upstairs on 1 December 2021 but wanted to know why it had not visited to investigate the repair in the past 2 months. He said the issue had inconvenienced his family as they were unable to move their furniture back into position for fear of the problem getting worse when it next rained.
He asked why, when he had first reported the leak as an emergency, he was told that he should call the next day and that the landlord did not have the contact details for the upstairs flat. He queried why the landlord had not acted on the suspected tenancy fraud and why the occupants were not contacted about their behaviour.
He said he wanted the leak fixed on 1 December 2022 as planned and for the ceiling at the property to be made good, including being painted. He also asked that since the flat above now seemed to be empty, that the locks should be changed.
He expressed how let down and abandoned he and his wife felt from the landlord’s lack of action in respect of the flat above and in relation to their requests for communication from the landlord.
On 9 December 2021 the resident told the landlord that a representative from an energy company had entered the flat above with a warrant. He said the occupants above had bypassed an electric meter and had been stealing electricity from the mains supply. He felt that the property now needed an emergency electrical safety check as well as a gas safety check.
On 13 December 2021 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. In summary, it said:
1. It was sorry the resident had to complain and that the issue had not been resolved sooner.
2. The delays in fixing the leak had been because of access issues. It apologised. It said it had now arranged an appointment for 4 January 2021 to begin repairs. It said the repairs team would track the work until completed.
3. It’s out of hours team assist when a leak is not containable. Otherwise, residents are asked to contact during normal working hours. It said it had raised the issue of the landlord not having contact details with the above tenant with its repairs team.
4. Its records showed that its chief customer officer had forwarded the resident’s complaint to the relevant department on 11 November 2021. It said it “fully appreciate[d]” that the resident had not been contacted promptly.
5. In relation to the allegation that the tenant in the flat above was engaged in tenancy fraud, the landlord said this was being investigated. However, such investigations could take months and it could not divulge any details in terms of actions regarding this because of data protection reasons.
6. It apologised for not keeping the resident updated and for its error in communication. It offered compensation of £40 for the service failure with its communication and for its delayed complaint response.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint’s process on 22 December 2021. He said he did not consider the landlord’s complaint response had recognised that he was complaining about the ASB from the occupants of the flat above and the landlord’s failure to act. He pointed out that the landlord’s policy sets out it will “…contact the complainant within two working days and offer to meet (either in person or remotely) within 10 working days.” He asked what action the landlord had taken in the 6 months while “…we continued to suffer.”
He felt the landlord’s failure to act on reports of ASB had then led to access issues when it was needed for essential repairs. He said he understood that any tenancy fraud was a matter for the landlord but his concern was its influence on the problems of ASB and repairs access. He also said that it was the landlord that had told him it suspected tenancy fraud in July 2021, not a claim made by him. He said he had only pursued this because he wanted to get “some action” on the ASB.
He asked to know when the landlord’s tenancy fraud investigation had begun. Further, he said the landlord had not confirmed that when the repairs were finished, it would make good any damage to the property’s ceiling resulting from the leak. He also asked the landlord to confirm the locks would be changed when the existing tenant had left.
The resident set out a list of 12 occasions since June 2021 where he said he had contacted the landlord and it had failed to respond.
He said that the new date of 4 January 2021 to repair the leak took the count up to 70 days since he first reported the leak, which he said was “not acceptable.”
He commented again that he had not received a reply from the landlord’s chief customer officer and expressed dismay that the landlord had apologised for failing to update him. He said he was not just complaining about a failure to update but about a “…total lack of action from the beginning”.
The resident was also concerned about the landlord’s response to his reports that the occupants in the flat above had been, to his knowledge, stealing electricity. The landlord had said it would make its gas and electrical team aware of his concerns. He felt that it could be a safety issue and should require a full safety check.
On 18 January 2022 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It “fully accepted that there [had] been unreasonable delays in arranging repairs.” It accepted that while access had been an issue it should have “…taken further action”. That would include taking legal action to gain access. It said it had addressed this failing with the team.
In relation to the chief customer officer failing to reply to the resident’s 2 communications on 11 and 21 November 2021, it reiterated that he had sent the resident’s communications to the relevant team but accepted that this was not followed through and said it was not the level of service it intended to deliver.
In relation to the resident’s complaint that his ASB reports had not been actioned it said that there had been “service issues” with managing the ASB reports. It said that the neighbourhood officer should have investigated his concerns in June 2021 when first raised. He said he did put some accusations to the neighbours on 10 December 2021, including subletting, which were denied.
It said it upheld this aspect of the resident’s complaint and assured him that it was going to investigate further and was looking to streamline its service delivery.
In relation to the resident’s enquiries about the fraud investigation, it said that this was subject to an ongoing investigation by specialist officers. It said it appreciated that the resident had reported the issue some time ago and asked him if he could continue to update it. It provided the name and email address of the officer who was in charge of the case.
It said that in relation to the concerns about electricity safety, it had arranged for its electrician to check if there had been any tampering. It said if this was substantiated, it would take the necessary action in line with the tenancy agreement.
It offered a sincere apology for all the “service issues” including the lack of action to arrange access, communication failures and unreasonable delay.
It apologised for missed appointments and said the repairs would be complete by 8 February 2022. It also offered £50 compensation for a missed appointment, £100 for delays and £100 for the inconvenience caused.
On 21 January 2022 the resident responded. He said, among other things, that the landlord’s focus was on the repair issues but that did not take away from the main problem as he saw it, which was that the landlord did not take action or respond as it should. He said he had contacted the landlord at least 18 times by telephone and email before submitting his formal complaint on 26 November 2021. He said he found the landlord’s lack of action had been “incomprehensible”. He said he still wanted to know why there was no action taken following his report of numerous ASB incidents in June 2021 and why the landlord failed to follow its own policy.
He asked again why no investigation was made into the suspected tenancy fraud.
He also raised concerns about rubbish, which had apparently been left outside in June 2021 by the occupants of the above flat.
He said he understood that a notice had been served on the occupants of the above flat and asked how this was progressing.
He said he found the wording in the landlord’s response, that it “…would really like to work with you” to be insulting as he had always tried to work with the landlord.
On 4 February 2022, following an arranged conversation with the resident, the landlord’s director for resident experience completed a further review in response to the resident’s continued concerns.
He accepted that while there were records of the landlord’s customer service team summarising his concerns, “…there is little in the way of records of actions being taken by [the landlord] until it put the allegations of subletting and tenancy fraud to the neighbour in December 2021.”
He said it was clear the officers involved in the case – who no longer worked for the landlord – had not addressed his concerns.
He said the landlord had now formed a new Customer Relationship management team and it was “really sorry” this had happened. It said it had reviewed processes, delivered staff training and recruited new people to address the types of concerns around poor communication and lack of action that the resident had raised. He provided a contact email for a new neighbourhood officer. He said if the resident could not get in contact with that person, he could contact his line manager. If he still could not get through, the resident could personally contact him.
In relation to the investigation into any alleged fraud at the flat above, he said, “…clearly action should have been taken and it wasn’t.” He provided some context in relation to how difficult it could be to gain possession of a property and said that while there had been access issues at the above flat there had also been some issues with contractors. He increased the offer of compensation for the resident to £500 to recognise how long he had to wait for resolution.
He also set out that it was his understanding some works were completed on 26 January 2022, said the rubbish had been arranged to be collected and said that the landlord’s electrical team would be visiting the property on that day. He said the inspection would be shared with the resident.
On 17 February 2022 the resident’s local councillor wrote to the landlord, also addressing his correspondence to the landlord’s chief executive. She said a number of issues remained outstanding. In summary, these were:
1. The inspection of the flat that had been due to go ahead had not happened.
2. A gas and electrical safety check had yet to be carried out.
3. The landlord had not satisfactorily explained why it had failed to follow its ASB policy and blamed it on staff no longer with the landlord.
4. The landlord had not satisfactorily explained why it had not followed its repairs policy. Currently the resident had been awaiting a repair, as of the date of writing, for 87 working days. Its policy said standard repairs should be completed in 20 working days.
5. The landlord had not satisfactorily explained why it did not follow its policy on tenancy fraud.
6. The landlord had failed to remove boxes dumped outside by occupants of the above flat in June 2021.
7. The landlord had failed to confirm that new locks would be fitted to the main front door and keys issued to the resident and the new tenants only.
The councillor asked for a quick resolution to the above points in order to avoid a complaint being made to the Ombudsman. She said that despite the resident using the landlord’s complaint’s process, he was essentially in the same position he had been in over 6 months ago.
On 2 March 2022 the landlord responded. It said, among other things, that:
1. It was correct that the repairs had not gone ahead.
2. A gas safety check was not due yet but an officer had attended on 24 February 2022 to address the concerns regarding the electricity. There was no answer so the landlord has written to the occupiers of the above flat to ask for access. It said it would now have to pursue access through the legal route. It appreciated that it could have taken more robust access to gain access and said it would now do that.
On 14 March 2022 the resident’s councillor wrote to the landlord again to say that the relevant repairs had still not gone ahead. She included the local authority’s chief of staff in the correspondence. She said that the landlord had “not grasped the seriousness” of the resident’s concerns about gas and electric safety. She said that the resident had been informed that there had been tampering of the meters and electricity theft in the above flat. They had asked for checks in December 2021 and this had still not happened. She stressed that it was not about asking for an annual gas check but to check whether there had been any damage to the connections that were a cause for concern.
The reported rubbish had still not been collected. She also said that while the landlord had said when a new tenant moved in, it would issue keys to the new tenant and the resident only; in the meantime, the resident had continued concerns about who had access to the property. She also wanted to know what was happening with the eviction process, such as when was the matter escalated to court and why was it taking so long.
On 25 March 2022 the landlord responded. It said that an inspection had been carried out on 22 March 2022. This revealed that the leak was coming from the central heating pipes under the floor. It said it would raise a job to open the ceiling in the resident’s flat and repair the heating pipe to ensure the damage was rectified.
It said that on the same day, its electrical supervisor attended and confirmed that there were no issues. In relation to the gas checks, it said it had passed the concerns on to the head of repairs.
It arranged for another visit to the property to meet with the resident as suggested so that any rubbish could be identified and dealt with.
On 30 March 2022 the landlord informed the resident’s councillor that the resident did not want the leak accessed through his ceiling. It said it would therefore continue to try to gain access to the above flat. In the meantime, it said it had asked the resident to contact it if the leak became worse.
On 26 April 2022 the landlord responded that it fully understood the resident did not wish to have the disruption of having the ceiling opened up in their living room and it had now authorised the repair to be carried out through the floorboards of the above flat.
With regards to compensation, the landlord said it was considering a payment of £50 for the stress and inconvenience caused and £100 for not completing the repair in a reasonable timescale. It said these figures were in line with its compensation policy.
The resident’s representative reminded the landlord that it had already offered £500 previously and asked that it reconsider that sum, given the extra distress and inconvenience the resident had experienced while waiting for the issues to be resolved.
On 17 May 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident’s representative again, confirming, among other things, that “once the leak has been repaired we will make good and decorate [the resident’s] ceiling.” It said it would review the offer of compensation given the distress and inconvenience caused since the £500 was offered.
The landlord gained possession of the flat above the resident’s property on 18 July 2022.
On 5 September 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord to ask when the repairs to the leak would go ahead. He expressed surprise that this had still not happened given possession of the property had been granted in July 2022. He was also concerned that the flat had been put up for sale at auction on 22 September 2022.
The resident said the leak was investigated by the landlord on 28 September 2022. He said that not much decoration was required as the leak had not caused much damage. However, he considered he should not have to do this himself.

Assessment and findings

On the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about ASB

It is evident that this situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to firstly explain that the Ombudsman’s role is not to decide if the actions of the neighbour amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and in accordance with its policies and procedures.
The resident said he reported the behaviour of the occupiers of the flat above the property in June 2021 and on 14 July 2021. He reported further ASB from the flat above the property on 23 August 2021. He referred to their “poor behaviour” and did not specify the specific behaviour. Although at other times, he made reference to rubbish that he believed had been left out by the occupiers of the upstairs flat. Later, on 29 September 2021, he referred to loud banging and noise throughout the night. The landlord’s policy says it will investigate low risk types of ASB within 10 working days. This did not happen, which was inappropriate and amounted to maladministration. The resident believes that if the landlord had investigated the ASB he reported it might have helped it address other problems, such as the leak. We cannot say that for certain but it is the case that a more joined-up approach to the concerns raised by the resident would have been appropriate. The landlord recognised and apologised for its lack of action. It reflected in its response to the resident on 4 February 2022 that there was little evidence of any investigation to the reports made until December 2021. It said it had created a new team, had delivered staff training and recruited new people to address the poor communication with the resident and the lack of action. At stage 2 of its complaints process it said it would streamline its service delivery.
When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether any redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology and arrangements to improve services), was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
Although the landlord said in February 2022 that it had created a new team to address a lack of action this Service considers a specific payment for its failings to respond and investigate the ASB issues is appropriate. We have therefore made an order that the landlord should make a further payment to the resident to further recognise its failings here.

On the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a leak at an upstairs property.

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will take 20 working days to respond to standard repair requests. In this case, the resident initially considered the leak might be an emergency and called the emergency number. He was told to call back in normal working hours. This was in line with policy as it appeared that the leak was containable. However, the leak the resident reported was not fixed for 253 working days. This was over a year after it was reported and was an inappropriate delay. The resident repeatedly asked for the leak to be addressed in November 2021. He was understandably concerned. He was told the issue was because of access issues. After going through stage 1 and 2 of the complaints process the landlord fully accepted that even if some of the reason for the delay was because of access issues, the issue had taken “far too long to resolve.” He was offered £500 at that stage.
However, unfortunately the issue was not resolved at that stage. It was not resolved until late September 2022. This was despite the intervention from the resident’s councillor and despite the property being presumably vacant after possession in July 2022. This did not demonstrate any sense of urgency and did not demonstrate that the landlord had learnt from its previous failings, which is inappropriate. The landlord had still not contacted the resident to repair the leak when it put the flat above up for sale. This was obviously very concerning for the resident as he feared that the leak would not be resolved.
Ultimately, the leak was from a radiator in the flat above and was easily resolved. But the resident did not know that and should not have had to chase the repair for over a year. This is inappropriate and will have caused the resident and his family distress and inconvenience. In February 2022, the landlord had already increased the original offer of compensation of £40 to £500 because of the length of time it had taken to resolve the matter. It then offered a reduced amount at a later date which would have been further aggravating given the original apparent acceptance of fault and demonstration of apparent sympathy with the resident’s situation. We consider it was positive that the landlord acknowledged its failing to fix the repair but this response was diluted by its later further delay in fixing the repair, even when, after having taken possession of the upstairs flat, the access issue was no longer an issue for the landlord. Considering the length of time that the landlord took to address the repair, the impact upon the resident, the landlord’s awareness of the resident’s mobility issues and the number of times the resident had to chase the landlord about the repair the sum of £500 is not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident. We have therefore made an order that acknowledges the further distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s continued failings.

On the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a neighbour subletting.

It is a matter for the landlord, as the resident recognised in complaint correspondence, how it enforces breaches of a contract with a tenant. However, it informed the resident that it had commenced an investigation into the subletting and as access was an issue at the property, the resident was understandably interested in the progress or not of that investigation. However, as the landlord accepts, it did not take any identifiable steps to investigate until December 2021 when an officer made enquiries with the neighbour about the allegations. The landlord has already apologised to the resident for any impact its failure to investigate might have had over the other issues, such as the ASB and the leak. The landlord is correct that to say that providing any more information about any investigation would be a breach of data protection regulations and has apologised to the residentfor its communication failings. Therefore, we do not consider there to have been maladministration by the landlord.

On the landlord’s complaint handling.

In its complaints responses the landlord apologised for its service failures and attempted to put things right with offers of redress. The landlord also showed that it was resolution focussed by reviewing the amount of compensation awarded at different stages of the complaints procedure resulting in an increased offer of compensation at stage 2 and in its final review of the case. However, it later reduced that offer which was confusing and inappropriate given that the issues were still unresolved.
The landlord’s complaint handling at stage 1 of its process was sympathetic and apologetic. It acknowledged it had not responded quicker to the resident’s reports and apologised for not being in contact. However, its £40 offer of compensation for the service failure in communication and its delayed complaint response was not sufficient. It did not fully recognise the impact or concern caused to the resident by its continued failure to remedy the leak. Neither did it sufficiently recognise the distress caused to the resident and his family by its failings in communication. The landlord was aware that the resident was finding the situation distressing. The Ombudsman’s Code says that landlords should try and resolve complaints as early as possible and this response failed to do that, which was inappropriate.
Its stage 2 response was frank and apologetic. It “fully accepted” its failings. However, while it made promises about repairs and about visits to enquire into the resident’s concerns over the safety of the electrics at the property, it failed again, in its offer of £250 to sufficiently recognise the impact of its delays and poor communication on the resident, which was inappropriate.
At the landlord’s final review the landlord again fully and frankly accepted where it had gone wrong. This is good practice. The resident was not satisfied with its explanation about why it had not followed its ASB or other policies and it was unable to expand more than it had done already. However, it is relevant that even though the landlord’s response was extremely apologetic, expressing that it was “really sorry” for the failings and accepting fully that “…action should have been taken”; it did not then go on to remedy the failings or take action. This meant that it did not, as it claimed, learn from its errors, which is inappropriate.
Further, to comply with its policy and with the Code, the landlord should only operate a 2 stage complaints process. In this case particularly, where even after a 3rd stage, the resident’s main concerns, which was for a repair, was not progressed, a 3rd stage was not appropriate and only added to the impression the resident had that the landlord expressed sympathy and understanding but failed to take action.

Determinations

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the residents reports about ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the residents reports about a leak at an upstairs property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the way the landlord handled the residents reports about a neighbour’s subletting.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to respond to reports from the resident about ASB, failing to take any steps to investigate or discuss the reports with the resident.
The landlord took over a year to fix a repair that it should have fixed within 20 working days. It said that it had access issues but even after it gained access, it still delayed making the repair, causing the resident distress and inconvenience throughout the period where he was concerned about the leak and frustrated with the lack of action from the landlord.
The landlord apologised to the resident for any delay in taking action concerning the alleged neighbour subletting and appropriately informed the resident that providing any more information about any investigation would be a breach of the data protection regulations.
The landlord frankly apologised in all of its complaint responses but promised action that was not forthcoming, damaging the resident’s confidence in the complaint’s process’ usefulness in putting things right. It also operated a third stage, which is not line with its policy or the Code.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to:

Issue a letter of apology, from an appropriate member of the senior leadership team to the resident for the failings highlighted in this report.
Arrange for any necessary decoration caused by the leak at the resident’s property, providing evidence to the Ombudsman when this is completed.
Pay the resident £500 previously offered if this has not already been paid.
Pay the resident a further £500 to acknowledge the further distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s response to his reports about the leak from a neighbour’s flat.
Pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of its failings in responding to his reports about ASB.
Pay the resident £100 to acknowledge its complaint handling failures.
The payments are to be made direct to the resident and not used to offset any monies that the resident may owe to the landlord. The landlord must update the Service when payment has been made.

Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord must undertake a senior management review of the case to help prevent failures reoccurring. The review should include but not be limited to consideration of three specific issues of concern:
1. The landlord’s failings to respond appropriately to reports about ASB.
2. The landlord’s approach to gaining access to properties where there are reports of a leak and how it can make its approach more robust.
3. The reasons for the delay after the landlord had gained possession of the property. These should be explained to the resident and to the Ombudsman.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to review the complaint handling failures identified in this report. It should review its complaint handling and ensure that, in line with the Code it does not have more than 2 stages that can cause delay or unnecessary confusion.