Bristol City Council (202118413)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118413

Bristol City Council

19 December 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s:
  1. Reports of antisocial behaviour.
  2. Rent arrears.
  3. Overgrown garden.
2. The administration of the community trigger.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
The resident’s concerns about the way the landlord handled the administration of his rent arrears and his overgrown garden are noted. However, the resident has not made a formal complaint to allow the landlord the opportunity to resolve the issues through its internal complaints process. Therefore, these complaints have not been assessed as part of this investigation. The resident may wish to make a fresh complaint to the landlord and if he remains dissatisfied with its response he can approach us for assistance.
Paragraph 42 (j) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
The resident complained that the community trigger was not administered correctly. In this case the responsible body for administering the community trigger was the local authority. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about functions for which the local authority is responsible. Since the resident’s complaint relates to a local authority function the complaint cannot be reviewed by us. As a result, the complaint is better suited to the LGSCO.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority.
The property is a ground floor 1 bedroom flat.
The resident is vulnerable and has number of mental health diagnoses, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that the resident reported an incident of antisocial behaviour (ASB) to the police on 23 April 2020. He said that his neighbour had shouted his name in the street and was “constantly having a go at him.”
On 7 May 2020 the resident phoned the landlord to report that he had been assaulted by his neighbour’s son following an argument. The landlord’s ASB case notes recorded that the resident followed this up in writing via an email on that same day to which he attached video footage of the incident. He gave the landlord a police reference for the incident. The landlord’s records show that it opened an ASB case, classed as ‘informal’, also on that same day. It said this was because there was insufficient evidence.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 May 2020 to acknowledge receipt of the ASB report and said it would be in contact within 10 working days.
The landlord spoke to the neighbour, also on 11 May, who made a counter allegation against the resident. The neighbour alleged that the resident was outside his property using a megaphone to accuse the neighbour of “all sorts.” The neighbour alleged that the resident had pushed a camera in his son’s face and started shouting so his son had pushed him out of the way. He confirmed that the police had already spoken to him and had said they would not take further action.
The landlord emailed the police on the same day, to ask them to confirm if they were going to take any action. It said if not, it would close the ASB case and would write to the resident to confirm accordingly.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 June 2020 to report a further incident of ASB caused by the same neighbour. He said his neighbour was shouting at him for no reason and another neighbour sided with him. He was accusing the resident of using racist language through a megaphone. He was concerned his report would be “turned against him” on the grounds of racism which he denied. His neighbour accused him of being an “informer” as he passed him walking down the pathway. He believed this was in relation to him giving a statement to police about a previous incident on 30 May involving his neighbour’s son.
The resident called the landlord on 3 June 2020 because he was concerned that it was not addressing the situation. He said he needed to be moved to emergency accommodation. He said that because all the housing officers were white they did not understand his situation. The landlord noted that the police were involved but had not advised the resident not to return to his property.
The landlord emailed the resident on 3 June 2020 to say that the police were investigating the incident. It said that any action it took would be based on the findings of the police investigation. It apologised for the delay in replying to his emails and said it would update him in due course.
The landlord’s records, dated 4 June 2020, show that the resident requested an ASB review, previously known as the community trigger, of action taken for ongoing incidents. He said he had reported 3 incidents over the past 6 months involving assault and threats. He said it caused him anxiety, sleep deprivation and that he was too fearful to return home for fear of abuse or retribution.
The landlord’s records contain an undated document submitted by the police for the purposes of the community trigger, as follows:
1. The resident had reported ASB on 23 April 2020, 7 May 2020 and 2 June 2020.
2. It did not intend to take any action against alleged perpetrators for any of the incidents due to lack of evidence.
3. The incident on 23 April was filed due to “evidential difficulties.”
4. Following the incident on 7 May the police put safeguarding measures in place at the resident’s home.
5. The police carried out a leaflet drop and did receive contact however, there was no evidence that would support a prosecution and it did not corroborate the resident’s account.
6. The police carried out house to house enquiries following the incident on 2 June and witnesses were identified. However, the report was filed due to “evidential difficulties.”
7. The officer said that the most recent behaviours the resident had reported, including the playing or recordings of the suspect’s voice or shouting, while making reference to him could be considered harassment. However, he did not think that it was proportionate, ethical or necessary to pursue a prosecution at this time. He had concluded that the evidence was weak and “extremely unlikely to result in a successful prosecution.” He noted that there was some evidence which specifically did not corroborate the resident’s account of events.
8. The officer recommended that both parties sign a good neighbour agreement. However, the resident did not wish to participate as he did not think his neighbour would adhere to the terms. The resident did not wish to participate in mediation.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 June 2020 because he could not return to his property and he felt the police were doing nothing about the problem.
On the 9 June 2020 the landlord closed the ASB case because the police were not taking any action. Its records show that it had advised the resident the best way forward at the time was for him to consider signing a ‘good neighbour agreement’ but he declined to do so. Its records show that the resident had approached the community safety partnership on that same day to express his dissatisfaction that neither the police nor landlord were taking him seriously. He said a safeguarding issue was preventing him from returning to the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 June 2020 to chase confirmation from the police about it not being safe for him to return to the property. He was advised to contact the police directly and then update the landlord accordingly.
An internal email of 10 June 2020 refers to a multi-agency meeting which was held to discuss the resident’s application for a community trigger. The police were to refer the case to the ASB team to arrange an ASB case conference. The housing officer suggested the resident be offered a Landlord Agreed Transfer (LAT) to an area of his choice.
A further internal email dated 19 June 2020 confirmed that the police investigation was ongoing and that, should the police find evidence to support the allegations made, they would take necessary action to ensure the resident was safe.
An internal record dated 20 June 2020 confirmed that the case had been referred to the ASB team who were pursuing a multi-agency conference through the community trigger process. In a second email of the same date, the housing officer chased a response to the suggestion that a LAT be agreed for the resident.
The landlord issued a ‘final complaint response’ to the resident on 31 July 2020. This investigation has not been provided with evidence that the resident had made a formal complaint. The wording of the letter suggests that the resident had made a number of attempts to contact various members of staff on a range of matters. The letter was an attempt to consolidate the landlord’s formal response to those enquiries. The letter advised the resident that:
1. There was no evidence that the housing officer had behaved in a discriminatory manner and it would not allocate the case to another officer.
2. Action taken by the landlord for breach of tenancy had to be proportionate.
3. More recent complaints about his neighbour and son were still being considered in partnership with the police. The landlord would be unlikely to be successful if it made an application for a possession order therefore, to commence such action would be disproportionate. It concluded that actions taken against the neighbour appeared to be in line with normal processes.
4. As this was the landlord’s final response the resident could escalate his complaint to the Housing Ombudsman if he wished.
An internal email dated 5 February 2021 confirms that the police had advised the resident “would not be deemed as being at imminent risk of harm to return to the property.” This was because the son of the neighbour involved in the incident was no longer in the area.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 May 2021 to say that he had returned briefly to his property on 25 May to collect possessions. During his time at the property he witnessed his neighbour repeatedly banging his front door, mumbling angry words outside the resident’s property. He said that the neighbours had colluded on his previous complaints and that the landlord did not follow its policy and guidance.
The landlord’s records show that a multi-agency meeting took place on 8 June 2021. The landlord has been asked to provide a copy of the notes for the purposes of the investigation but these have not been provided.
The resident made a formal stage 1 complaint on 11 September 2021, as follows:
1. The landlord had treated him less favourably than his neighbour in terms of noise pollution guidance and all other matters including threats of violence, harassment, ASB, stalking and assault.
2. The landlord had colluded with the police to undermine his rights which was discrimination under the Equality Act of race and disability.
3. The community trigger was not completed properly.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 22 September 2021, as follows:
1. It provided all residents with the same guidance, in line with its policy and procedure.
2. It would only investigate noise nuisance if noise happened regularly and if the resident had completed a 14 day noise diary.
3. Information on how to report noise nuisance and ASB was clearly set out on its website and links were provided.
4. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint that he was treated less favorably.
5. The landlord worked jointly with the police to address ASB. Contact with police was in no way a collusion to undermine his rights. It could not see evidence of any actions or decisions which would be considered as discriminatory. This part of the complaint was not upheld.
6. The landlord had previously written to the resident about the outcomes of the community trigger. If the resident remained dissatisfied, he could escalate his complaint to the LGSCO.
An internal email of 22 September 2021 said that the resident had not resided at the property since June 2020 therefore there had been no further incidents of ASB to investigate.
The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 26 September 2021, as follows:
1. The landlord had been biased and discriminatory, along with the police, in its interpretation of information and facts.
2. He wanted action taken against his neighbour for his visitor assaulting him.
3. He asked for an explanation as to why he had never been offered sound recording equipment.
4. He had been harassed by his neighbour for reporting his friend for racism.
5. He asked to know if the landlord had reviewed the evidence he provided in relation to the incident that occurred on 2 and 3 June 2020.
6. He requested that the evidence be looked at by the safeguarding officer, housing officer and ASB officer who had not been involved in the case previously.
7. The incidents he reported as taking place on 7 and 16 May 2020 and 2 and 3 June 2020 were evidence of breaches of tenancy. He said that to not listen to or view the material supplied as evidence would be discriminatory.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 October 2021 to complain that:
1. The landlord was harassing him around his current housing situation but it had ignored ASB caused by his neighbour.
2. He disputed the landlord’s view that during the incident in May 2020 he had stood in the alleged perpetrator’s way, he said that his video evidence showed otherwise.
3. He felt the threats of violence were still present, which he attributed to failings by the police.
4. He was frustrated that the landlord was not helping and felt it was discriminating against him on the grounds of race and disability.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 2 November 2021. It referred to the contents of its stage 1 complaint response, adding that its position remained the same. It noted that the resident was not residing at the property. It advised that there was no evidence to conclude that the resident would be at risk at the property and this would need to be confirmed by the police.
The resident contacted us on 9 November 2021 to report his dissatisfaction about the landlord’s response to his reports of ASB because he:
1. Did not feel that the landlord had considered the evidence that he had submitted.
2. Disagreed that there was no evidence of discrimination.
3. Did not agree that the landlord had carried out its own independent investigation.
4. Felt the landlord was enforcing the terms of the tenancy agreement against him but not against his neighbour.
5. Was not living at the property because he did not feel safe.

Events post internal complaints process

On 7 November 2023 the resident advised this Service that he was experiencing difficulties with his mental health.
On 9 November 2023 the landlord advised this Service that it had last spoken to the resident on 25 September. He had said he would return if it was “100%” safe for him to do so. The landlord said neither it nor the police could guarantee that however, it reiterated that there was no apparent risk to his safety. It told us that the resident was believed to be staying somewhere in London.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord has advised us that it can consider granting a LAT in exceptional circumstances to make a direct offer to a tenant rather than through its ‘Homechoice’ bidding system. They can be used to move a resident away from a situation.
The landlord’s ASB policy says:
1. Victims will be placed at the centre of all that it does in terms of its approach to ASB, the process of action it takes and the support it delivers throughout the process.
2. It will work together with partner agencies and customers to tackle and not tolerate ASB and to deliver a proactive and consistent approach.
Its process map for ‘breach of tenancy condition/ASB (informal)’ says that:
1. Once it has acknowledged the complaint in writing it will contact the resident and make notes on the tenancy account to establish facts such as the impact on the resident and whether any third parties are involved, including neighbours. It will also provide the resident with the means to submit evidence, such as videos.
2. It will contact the alleged perpetrator to the complaint and visit them to explain the complaint and listen to their account which will be documented.
3. If the complaint is not substantiated no action will be taken and the case will be closed. Both the resident and the alleged perpetrator will be notified.
The ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014 sets out the need for landlords to put victims at the heart of their response to ASB. When considering the response to a complaint of ASB, landlords must consider the effect that the behaviour in question is having on the life of the victim.
The government’s guidance ‘putting victims first: more effective responses to antisocial behaviour’ says agencies should put the victim at the heart of their response, driven by an assessment of harm to the victim.
The Equality Act 2010 places a duty on public authorities to think about the needs of people who are disadvantaged or suffer inequality when they make decisions about how they provide their services and implement policies.

Response to resident’s reports of ASB

It is outside the scope of this investigation to determine whether or not the ASB occurred. Therefore, this determination has assessed whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s records show that the resident reported an incident of ASB to the police on 23 April 2020. There is no evidence that it responded to the complaint in its capacity as landlord which was inappropriate. It prevented the resident from accessing the landlord’s services which would have provided him with the opportunity to have his complaint investigated in the context of a tenancy breach as well as a criminal offence. Furthermore, this was not in line with its policy which says it takes a proactive approach to tackling ASB.
When the resident contacted the landlord on 7 May 2020 to report that he had been assaulted the landlord opened an ‘informal’ ASB case that same day. The landlord’s justification for classifying such a serious complaint as ‘informal’ was lack of evidence. However, its notes show that the resident emailed, also on 7 May, and attached a video of the incident. Its process map says it will gather evidence such as videos. It is reasonable to conclude therefore that it will consider all forms of evidence as part of its investigation. However, there are no notes to confirm that the landlord viewed and assessed the evidential merits of the footage which was a significant failure.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 May 2020 to acknowledge receipt of the ASB report and said it would be in contact within 10 working days. However, there is no evidence that it did so which was inappropriate because in not doing so the resident could not be confident that the landlord took his complaint seriously.
Its process map says that it will contact the resident to establish the facts, such as the impact on the resident. There are no ‘live’ file notes relating to a detailed conversation with the resident either by phone or face to face. Risk assessments are widely used as a tool to assess harm and ensure that the victim is placed at the centre of an ASB investigation, as required by the government’s guidance. However, there is no evidence that a risk assessment was conducted to assess the impact and potential for further harm, both physical and mental. This was significant failure given the nature of the ASB report and the known vulnerabilities of the resident, including his diagnosis of PTSD. Furthermore, it is evidence that the landlord did not have due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
By 11 May 2020 the landlord had appropriately contacted the alleged perpetrator. The landlord took the position that it would close the case if the police were not going to take any action. The landlord and police work to a different evidential standard therefore, it is inappropriate for a landlord to rely solely on determinations made by the police to guide their own ASB outcomes. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to assess all the available evidence and come to its own conclusions about what was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances, in the context of a breach of tenancy. This was particularly critical because the resident said that the video footage proved the alleged perpetrator’s account was inaccurate.
The resident reported a further incident on 2 June 2020, involving the same neighbour. He then called the landlord again the following day, on 3 June, because he did not feel it was safe for him to return to the property. The landlord’s notes say that the resident advised that the police were involved but had not advised the resident he should not return to his property.
The resident asked to be moved for his own safety however, there is no evidence that the landlord offered to meet with the resident or that it phoned him to discuss his concerns. This was inappropriate given the significance of his decision to leave the property and the landlord’s policy that it takes a victim centred approach to ASB. Furthermore, it would have given the landlord the opportunity to:
1. Carry out a risk assessment.
2. Discuss the impact of the resident’s decision to leave the property in terms of his security of tenure.
3. Discuss whether there were any other reasonable steps it could take to help the resident return home, such as additional support with his mental health and/or installation of extra security measures at the property.
4. Consider its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
There are no ‘live’ notes relating to the landlord’s correspondence with the police to establish for itself whether the resident might be at risk of harm should he return to the property. This would have been appropriate given the nature of the previous incidents, the resident’s vulnerabilities and the fact he had left the property. Furthermore, it is evidence that the landlord did not have due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
Furthermore, when the resident contacted the landlord on 10 June 2020 to follow up on the police’s position regarding his safety, he was advised to contact the police and update the landlord accordingly. Given his distress, vulnerabilities, and the landlord’s policy that it works with partner agencies to deliver a proactive approach to ASB, the landlord’s failure to liaise with the police was inappropriate. This is because it demonstrated a lack of empathy and failed to reassure the resident that it took his situation seriously. It was not until 5 February 2021, 8 months later, that the police advised the landlord that the resident “would not be deemed as being at imminent risk of harm to return to the property.” This is not surprising given the passage of time since the last incident and that the resident was not living at the property but it may not have been the case at the time.
In its email of 3 June 2020 the landlord once again adopted the position that its own outcomes would be based on the police investigation which was inappropriate. Furthermore, information provided by the police for the purposes of a community trigger confirmed that the resident had evidence of the “suspects voice or shouting while making reference to him.” The officer concluded that the evidence was weak and “extremely unlikely to result in a successful prosecution.” There is no evidence that the landlord reviewed the same evidence to assess whether it might be reasonable and proportionate to take action for breach of tenancy which was a failure.
In the same document, the police confirmed that following the incident on 7 May it put safeguarding measures in place at the resident’s home. There is no record of this on the ASB case notes so the landlord could not be sure what safeguarding measures had been put in place. There is no evidence that the landlord had considered whether it might be appropriate for it to offer further safeguarding measures, such as additional locks or a spy hole, on the basis that the police may have offered different resources.
The landlord closed the case on 9 June 2020 at a time when the resident was still insisting it was not safe for him to return home. Its reason for doing so was that the police were not taking any action. The landlord’s ASB policy says that victims will be placed at the centre of all that it does. Taking that into account, it would have been appropriate for it to have assessed the following before closing the case:
1. The impact on the resident – obtained via a detailed conversation and risk assessment.
2. The evidence provided in the video footage and audio recordings.
3. The resident’s vulnerabilities.
4. The account provided by the alleged perpetrator.
5. Whether any further support could be offered to the resident to assist him to feel safe enough to return home.
There is no evidence that it did so which was a serious failure. Furthermore, it is evidence that the landlord did not have due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. There is no evidence that it issued the resident with a case closure letter as it said it would in its email of 11 May 2020. It would have been reasonable to write to him to confirm the case was closed to set out the reasons why, what he should do if there were any further incidents and, given his vulnerabilities, signpost him for appropriate support.
Despite closing the ASB case on 9 June 2020 the landlord continued to engage with partner agencies on the resident’s ongoing report about ASB. An internal email dated 19 June confirmed that the police investigation was ongoing and that, should the police find evidence to support the allegations made, they would take necessary action to ensure the resident was safe. This is further evidence of an over reliance on the police to provide a resolution, instead of working in partnership to fulfil its responsibility to its vulnerable resident as his landlord.
There is no evidence that the landlord communicated the ongoing updates to the resident. However, if it had done so it would have been difficult for the resident to understand its approach, particularly because it had not undertaken its own investigation. The resident raised this same point with the landlord in his email of 27 May 2021 and again in his stage 2 complaint of 26 September. However, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s request for confirmation that it had considered his evidence which was unreasonable.
On 10 June 2020 the housing officer sent an internal email to request that the resident be considered for a move to an area of his choice. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this request, either on this occasion or when a second request was made on 20 June. Given the resident had left the property because he was too scared to return, and was vulnerable, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered this request and document its decision accordingly.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord attempted to support the resident by providing him with information on his alternative housing options, such as a mutual exchange. This would have been appropriate given the resident’s vulnerabilities and his concerns that it was not safe for him to return to the property. This is further evidence that the landlord did not have due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
The landlord made a series of fundamental and significant errors in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports. The resident complained that this was the result of discrimination against him by his landlord on the grounds of race and disability. If the resident wishes to pursue this further, he can consider contacting the Equality Advisory and Support Service via their website at www.equalityadvisoryservice.com, or by phone on 0808 800 0082.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was inappropriate because:
1. There were record keeping failures owing to a lack of detailed ASB case notes that did not contain relevant ‘live’ evidence from the time of the complaint.
2. There was an over reliance on the police investigation to determine its own outcomes.
3. There is no evidence that it considered the evidence provided by the resident and it did not carry out its own independent investigation into the ASB reports.
4. It failed to comply with its own policy to put the victim at the heart of its approach by failing to:
  1. Offer to meet the resident or conduct an in depth telephone discussion.
  2. Carry out risk assessments.
  3. Consider the resident’s vulnerabilities including his mental health and therefore, did not have due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
  4. Consider the housing officer’s suggestion that a move (LAT) be considered.
  5. Satisfy itself that all appropriate safeguarding measures had been implemented.
  6. Liaise with the police at the earliest opportunity to establish whether it was safe for the resident to remain at the property.
  7. Communicate effectively with the resident throughout the investigation which was confused further by premature closing of the case.
  8. Provide the resident with additional support, including liaison with mental health agencies as appropriate.
  9. It also inappropriately opened the ASB report as an ‘informal’ complaint and did not follow its procedure.
The resident was disadvantaged and caused significant distress as a result because he could not be confident that the landlord had:
1. Fully understood his vulnerabilities and the impact the incidents had on him.
2. Assessed the risk posed to him and acted accordingly by considering safeguarding measures and/or his request for a move.
3. Taken his reports seriously by carrying out a thorough, independent investigation. This would reasonably have included reviewing the evidence to assess whether it was reasonable and proportionate to take action against his neighbour.
This investigation has considered that a residents’ circumstances may mean that they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability. Consideration of any aggravating factors (such as a resident’s physical and mental health conditions) could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
There was a series of serious failings which had a significant impact on the resident, this was due in part to his vulnerabilities which the landlord failed to consider. The landlord failed to consider its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s concerns further undermined the landlord/resident relationship. It demonstrated a failure to provide a service, put things right and learn from outcomes. The failings amount to severe maladministration for which an order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £2,500.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of his rent arrears and overgrown garden is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 42 (j) of the Scheme the resident’s complaint about the way the community trigger was conducted is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.

Reasons

The landlord failed to carry out an independent investigation into the resident’s reports of ASB. It did not consider his vulnerabilities or the impact the ASB had on him. Its approached lacked empathy and no additional support was offered. This caused the resident considerable distress and he felt he had no option other than to leave his property because he did not feel safe. Its ASB records were poor.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £2500 for the distress caused to the resident by its failures in its poor handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. This should be paid directly to the resident and should not be deducted from arrears on the resident’s rent account.
2. A senior manager should contact the resident to issue an apology for the failings identified in this report and discuss next steps in relation to the residents non occupation of the property. The date and outcome of this communication should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of the failings identified in this case. The review of the case and its outcomes should be used as content for staff training on its ASB policy and procedure. This should include:
1. Recognising which ASB reports should be classed as ‘informal’.
2. The importance and use of risk assessments.
3. How it will put the victim at the centre of its approach to ASB.
4. Key principles of ASB investigation and the need to adhere to procedures.
5. The importance of detailed making ASB notes which are live at the time of the complaint.
The date of the review, its outcomes and the date and content of the staff training should be provided to us within 8 weeks of the date of the determination.