Connexus Homes Limited (202013620)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013620

Connexus Housing Limited

23 March 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB);
2. handling of the resident’s request to be moved to a suitable property.

Background

At the time of the complaint, the resident held an assured tenancy that began on 20 June 2000. The property was a two bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord is a housing association.
The landlord’s records listed the resident’s vulnerabilities as long term anxiety, depression, and a heart condition.
The neighbour involved in the case lived in the other ground floor flat in the same block. It is assumed that the neighbour would have been subject to the same tenancy terms as the resident.
The landlord advised this Service of the neighbour’s background, and the complex needs involved in her move to the block.

Tenancy agreement

Section three of the resident’s tenancy agreement explained the obligation not to allow invited visitors to cause a nuisance or annoyance to neighbours living in the vicinity.

ASB policy

The definition of ASB in the version of the policy in use at the time of the resident’s complaint included conduct that causes harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
The policy explained how the landlord would support victims of ASB. This included discussing all action to be taken with the victim, and explaining to them the options open to the landlord, including likely outcomes. It also included providing the victim with regular updates, and minimising the burden on victims in collecting evidence.
The policy said that the landlord would not move complainants or perpetrators as a means of resolving ASB, rather it would deal with the ASB. It stated the only exception to this was in very extreme situations, where there were fears for the resident’s safety.
The policy explains the other agencies the landlord would work in partnership with, including the police.
The policy detailed the complainant’s responsibilities regarding ASB reported to the landlord. This included, “To respond to our telephone calls and/or letters without undue delay”.

Lettings policy

The landlord’s policy explained that the landlords properties are advertised and allocated via a choice based lettings scheme website.
It stated that in some exceptional circumstances, the landlord may direct match a resident to a property. The policy lists some of the reasons where this would be considered, which included ‘safeguarding concerns’.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that the resident called it on 7 April 2020. She reported that her neighbour was dealing drugs and having people in at all hours of the night, which was causing disturbances. She advised she had kept a log and called the police several times. The resident said that she was at the point where she could not take anymore, and wanted to move. She explained she was having to sleep on her sofa due to the noise at night. The landlord’s relevant team called the resident back and discussed the issues. It advised it could not do visits at that time, which it noted the resident understood. It agreed to visit when Covid restrictions allowed.
The landlord’s records show it received ASB reports about the neighbour, from other households within the same block made in July 2020. The landlord emailed the police on 27 July 2020, and asked if the police had received related calls or could share any further details.
The police emailed the landlord on 29 July 2020. They advised they had received a call from the resident reporting five people fighting at the block. They further advised that several people had been searched, and that the neighbour and one other person had been arrested.
The landlord replied to the police 29 July 2020, stating it had arranged a home visit with the neighbour. The landlord’s records shows this visit took place shortly after, but did not specify the date. The records state that, at the visit, the neighbour had claimed that the visitors responsible for the ASB were unwanted, and that she did not want these people in her property. The record says the visiting officers felt the neighbour was a victim, and advised her not to let them in. They advised her to call the police if they continued to visit and create a nuisance in the communal hall.
The resident called the landlord on 11 August 2020. She complained that the landlord had not taken the situation with her neighbour seriously. The resident said she had only received a ‘Home Point’ application (the choice based letting scheme) through the post, “rather than a solution”. She said that she had discussed it previously with the relevant team, but made no progress. She reported she was having to see her doctor about the issues. The record says that the resident declined offers to speak to the relevant team again, but said that she would be seeking further advice.
The landlord called the resident on 13 and 17 August 2020 to discuss the ASB issues. The landlord’s records stated that it advised the resident she must contact the police about alleged drug activities, and inform the landlord as well. It said it would review the security at the block to see what else could be done. It said the resident had been asked how she would like the situation resolved, and the resident had said she wanted to be moved. The record noted that the resident had previously been offered a managed move, but she had refused the property offered. The record stated that she had said she did not want to move by applying to ‘Home Point’.
The landlord’s call records show the resident called the landlord 21 October 2020, and asked for a call back to discuss the ASB issues. The record states that the landlord called the resident back on both mobile and landline numbers, but was only able to leave a message.
The resident called the landlord on 17 December 2020. The call records show she wanted to discuss her neighbour. The landlord’s records state it attempted to call the resident back on 17 and 21 December 2020, but was only able to leave messages.
The resident called the landlord on 11 January 2021. The landlord’s records show the resident advised she “would like a housing officer to attend to her property regarding her neighbour, she has made a log of all complaints and would like someone to see it”. The record shows the landlord returned the call, but got no answer and left a message.
The landlord’s records show that over the course of January and February 2021, it received several ASB reports relating to the neighbour, made by various other tenants who lived in the same block.
The resident called the landlord on 5 February 2021. She advised she had called the police the previous night and provided a crime reference number. She complained of noise nuisance, banging and shouting. She said she had been sleeping on her sofa for over a year.
The resident called this Service on 8 February 2021. Her main points were as follows:
1. The neighbour’s home had been a ‘drug den’ since 2019, with multiple drug users visiting.
2. She was using anti-depressants and slept in her living room, as she could not sleep in her bedroom.
3. The communal door had been broken and there would be people lying around in the hallway, as well as in the neighbour’s home. They were often abusive.
4. The landlord had done nothing, and had not engaged with the resident.
The landlord returned the resident’s call from 5 February 2021, on 11 February 2021. It advised the resident that it was monitoring the ASB situation and liaising with the police. The landlord’s record shows that the call became challenging and, after various warnings made to the resident, the landlord terminated the call.
The landlord’s records show an internal email sent by a housing officer on 11 February 2021. It referred to the ASB reports received from various tenants at the resident’s block. It said they were all directed to the police for criminal matters and advised to use the ‘noise app’. It said it had not received any ‘clips’ from the ‘noise app’, and the resident had refused to use it at all. It explained that cameras had been installed but had shown nothing.
The landlord’s records show a further internal email sent by the same housing officer on 12 February 2021. The email detailed a site visit the housing officer had carried out at the block the same day. The email said the housing officer had been able to walk straight in through the communal door. It said there was no one in the communal area and no signs of recent activity. It advised that the security of the door had been tested upon leaving, and was found to be secure. As such, it said that if further reports of rough sleepers were received, it would be assumed someone was letting them in.
The resident called this Service on 17 February 2021. She advised the landlord had contacted her and had said it had been trying to get in touch with her, which she disputed. She said that the ASB and drug use was ongoing, and the neighbour’s visitors were using gravel to stop the communal door from locking. She said she felt she must move, as the landlord was not doing anything.
The resident sent a text to the police the night of 23 February 2021. The text complained of ‘druggies’ who had been there for three nights, with lots of “banging and carrying on”.
The resident called the landlord on 24 February 2021. Her main points were as follows:
1. Her neighbour’s flat was being used as a ‘drugs den’, with people coming and going, and staying the night. Covid restrictions were being ignored.
2. The police attended that morning, but let them drive off.
3. The language was horrific and some visitors slept in the hallway. She had photographic evidence.
4. Police broke into the neighbour’s property two weeks earlier, and her front door now had a hole in it.
5. She was “absolutely petrified”, and had been sleeping on the sofa for over a year. She was seeing her doctor and had been put on to medication.
6. She had a thick file of all the incidents.
The police emailed the landlord on 24 February 2021, requesting any ASB reports from the block. The landlord replied, stating it believed there had been reports, “prior to us taking on the management of the block in December 2019”. It provided details of ASB reports it had received from various tenancies at the block, between April 2020 and February 2021.
The police emails from 24 February 2021 are titled ‘ASB Risk Management Plan’. They set out the police’s approach to the matter. The emails explained that the priority of the plan had been set at ‘high risk’ to the victims. The police emails state that it considered the ASB a matter for the police to resolve. The emails went on to detail the actions the police intended to take against the neighbour’s visitors, involved in the ASB.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 2 March 2021. The letter detailed the resident’s reports to this Service. It asked the landlord to contact the resident within five working days, and to provide a written response to her complaint within the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaint policy.
The landlord wrote to the resident, confirming the complaint had been logged, and explaining its process, on 4 March 2021. It also spoke with the resident the same day to discuss her complaint, and did so again on 8 and 16 March 2021.
The landlord’s call to the resident on 16 March 2021 was lengthy and reiterated that the issues reported were mainly criminal matters being dealt with by the police. The resident’s previous refusal of a direct match move was discussed, along with her reluctance to use Home Point. The resident said she was feeling suicidal at times, and the landlord offered to signpost her to support organisations.
The landlord sent its stage one complaint response letter to the resident on 16 March 2021. It apologised for how she was feeling and the stress the incidents she had described had caused her. The main points were as follows:
1. It had been, and would continue, to work closely with the police, and was monitoring the situation at the block.
2. It could not share detailed information of this due to the sensitivity of information relating to other tenancies.
3. It advised the resident continued to call the police if further incidences arose.
4. The resident had previously been offered a move to another property, but had declined. It would consider if a direct match to another property was appropriate, as she wished to move.
5. It was undertaking significantly reduced home visits due to Covid restrictions. Once it was able to do so, a housing officer would visit to discuss this further.
6. It would take appropriate actions if it gained evidence of tenancy breaches, in line with its policies and procedures.
The resident called the landlord to request her complaint be escalated to stage two of its process on 19 March 2021. The main points raised in her call were as follows:
1. Her mental health had been severely affected by her neighbour.
2. She was using medication and had to see a cardiologist as a result of the ongoing stress.
3. She had not slept in her bed for over 18 months. She was worried about the repercussions from her neighbour’s visitors. The visitors were often screaming, swearing and high on drugs.
4. She had contacted the police numerous times and had a list of incident numbers, and a log of the ASB.
5. She was willing to move to a specific area, but not just anywhere.
The landlord sent a written acknowledgement of the resident’s stage two escalation request on 22 March 2021 and called her the following day. The resident was very upset and cried through the call. The landlord tried to explain the evidence needed for it to take action, but the resident became further distressed and hung up.
The landlord called the resident on 12 April 2021 and discussed the stage two complaint. The landlord advised they had fixed the door and installed cameras to help obtain evidence of anyone letting people into the block when they should not. The resident reiterated she was desperate to move away from the ‘druggies’ and issues, but was insistent she would not engage with the Home Point application process. During the call, it was established the resident had suffered a recent heart attack. The landlord advised it would complete its investigation and go back to the resident with what it intended to do.
The landlord’s complaint records state that the case was further discussed internally, and with the police, on 12 April 2021. It said the CCTV camera footage from the communal area of the block had been assessed and there was nothing to suggest the previously reported behaviour was continuing. It said the police had advised the landlord they were looking to close the case, as they felt the activity had now ceased.
The landlord called the resident again on 15 and 19 April 2021. The landlord’s call record summarised that it had agreed to a managed move, and would set out the next steps in its letter. The resident had said she wanted a different housing officer to be involved. The landlord had advised that it would check if this was possible.
The landlord called the resident to discuss her complaint on 20 April 2021. The key points from the landlord’s call notes were as follows:
1. The landlord explained it could not get a different housing officer to assist with the move, due to sickness and workloads. It advised there would be no need for a physical visit, as her existing housing officer could complete the necessary application over the telephone.
2. The resident said she thought that the landlord should be taking action against the neighbour. The landlord explained that it would do this if it received evidence that enabled it.
3. The resident said she did not want to complete the Home Point application, and that she felt it was pointless. The landlord assured her this was not the case. It reiterated again why it had to have a completed application, even with direct managed moves.
4. The resident became very insistent that the landlord would not help her. The landlord attempted to reassure her it wanted to help her with the move to support her wellbeing. The resident terminated the call.
The landlord sent its stage two complaint response letter on 20 April 2021. It referred to its telephone discussion with the resident earlier that day. The key points were as follows:
1. The landlord confirmed it was offering the resident a direct match move. It said this was based on the health information she had provided, “in particular your recent heart attack”.
2. It reiterated it had the ability to positively support her with this. It said it believed a direct match move was the best solution to resolve the issues she was experiencing, and to support her wellbeing.
3. The landlord referenced its earlier telephone call with the resident and the next steps it had advised. It acknowledged she did not want her current housing officer to assist, but reiterated its advice from the call. It explained that the housing officer’s role was just to assist with the necessary administration.
4. It stated that the resident had terminated the call, but it asked she carefully consider its offer, and that it needed her to engage to make it happen. It encouraged her to discuss the matter with her doctor or relatives, and to let the landlord know if she wanted to discuss it further, or was ready to proceed.
5. It explained any property offered would be a ‘one time offer’, and may not be able to accommodate all of her expectations. However, it would be reasonable and meet the majority of her requirements.
6. It referred the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Summary of events after the landlord complaint process

The landlord’s internal emails show that a direct match application form was completed and approved in May 2021. The landlord had explained to the resident that she had a one bedroom housing need, but the resident had said she wanted two bedrooms. The internal emails show that the landlord decided to assess any one or two bedroom properties that became available. The landlord’s call records detail the ongoing contact with the resident over the following months, regarding a move and the continuing ASB.
A two bedroom bungalow became available and was offered by the landlord to the resident in a telephone call, on 15 July 2021. The landlord’s internal emails said that the resident declined the property, explaining she would only accept a new build.
The landlord’s internal emails from 15 July 2021 show that a discussion took place as to whether it would apply the ‘one time only offer’ criteria it had advised in its stage two complaint response to the resident. It was noted that the ASB at her current block was ongoing and affecting the resident’s mental and physical health. On this basis, it decided the resident should remain on the direct match list.
The resident’s doctor wrote to the landlord on 18 August 2021. The doctor detailed the significant physical and mental health issues the resident was suffering. She expressed her worry at the impact of the resident’s housing situation, and her belief it was exacerbating her symptoms. She stressed the importance of a house move and advised that she had made a safeguarding referral.
The landlord provided this Service a copy of its ‘drug misuse at property action plan’. It detailed its actions from September 2021 to March 2022 and the tenancy enforcement action the landlord had taken against the neighbour in January 2022.
The resident told this Service in December 2021 that she was going through a community trigger. The landlord told this Service in June 2022 that the community trigger, multi-agency tasking and coordination, was pulled and not upheld due to no evidence. It advised it was unable to evidence this as it was the local authority and police who had authority.
The landlord has told this Service that further properties were offered to the resident. The resident refused them up until she was offered a new build, two bedroom, semi-detached house. The landlord has said she moved into this property in June 2022 and that it paid for her removals.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of ASB reports

In cases such as this, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to assess the behaviour of the neighbour, or the actions of the police, rather it is to consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports, whether its response was in accordance with its policy, and whether it was appropriate and reasonable in all of the circumstances.
The Ombudsman recognises the challenges the case presented to the landlord, and the severe toll the resident has described it as taking on her and her quality of life. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, and of the neighbour’s background and complex needs. As such, it was appropriate for it to consider the needs of all parties and to work in partnership with the police. It is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord should have communicated with the resident more effectively than the information it had provided this Service suggested that it did. However, it is also the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord did in the most part act in line with its policy and the powers available to it.
The landlord noted in its internal emails that it was aware that ASB issues had occurred prior to it taking on the management of the resident’s block in December 2019. The earliest record in the information provided to this Service was the resident’s call to the landlord to report various ASB issues on 7 April 2020, shortly after the first national Covid lockdown. The resident commented that she had called the police a number of times and that she had been keeping a log of incidents. It was reasonable for the appropriate team to call her back to discuss the issues. It was unavoidable that Covid restrictions prevented a home visit at that time, but it was appropriate for the landlord to ensure the resident’s understanding of this and to agree to complete a home visit once it was permissible.
The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of what further actions the landlord took to investigate the reports, following its discussion with the resident in April 2020. The Ombudsman has also seen no evidence of when the first direct match move was offered to the resident, nor the rationale behind it. However, it is not disputed that the offer was made to the resident. The offer is referred to in the landlord’s records from August 2020, and so it is clear that the resident declined the property she was offered prior to this time. The landlord’s ASB policy said that it would only resolve ASB cases by moving residents, “in very extreme situations, where there are fears for the tenant’s safety”. It was reasonable for the landlord to assess the resident’s circumstances accordingly, and to offer her a direct match to an alternative property.
The landlord received reports of ASB about the same neighbour, and her visitors, from other tenants of the block in July 2020. It was appropriate that the landlord liaised with the police to request details of the incident, ahead of its visit to the neighbour. The police confirmed their involvement and records of the incident, and that they had also received an ASB report from the resident. The tenancy agreement outlines the tenant’s responsibilities, specifically regarding the behaviour of invited visitors. At the landlord’s visit, the neighbour stated the visitors had been unwanted. The landlord was also aware of the neighbour’s circumstances and background, prior to her moving to the block. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to record that it also considered the neighbour to be a victim, and neither the landlord nor the police took further action.
The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with how the landlord was handling the matter in her call on 11 August 2020. It was appropriate for the landlord to follow this up in its calls to the resident over the following days. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise her of the need to report all incidents to it and the police, and to agree to review the building security. It was appropriate that the security of the communal door was checked and that CCTV was subsequently installed in the communal area, although this does not appear to have occurred until early in 2021. These actions demonstrate that the landlord sought to improve security measures to reduce the likelihood of the resident experiencing further ASB.
The resident reported further ASB to the landlord in October 2020. The landlord attempted to call the resident, but could not get an answer and so left voice messages. The same thing occurred in December 2020 and January 2021. The landlord’s records showed it left voice messages each time, although the resident disputed this. The landlord’s ASB policy explains a tenant’s responsibility to respond to contact from the landlord, as detailed in paragraph 11. It is also accepted that Covid restrictions in place at that time would have limited visiting options. However, as the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and the toll the matter was taking on her, the Ombudsman would expect a more proactive approach in making contact beyond just leaving voice messages, for example by writing to her.
Part of the resident’s complaint concerned her frustration at what she regarded as the landlord’s lack of action against the neighbour. The landlord made various references to taking appropriate enforcement action if it had evidence to do so, including in its stage one complaint response and its discussions with the resident during its stage two investigation. However, the resident had stated in her call to the landlord on 7 April 2020, that she had kept a log of all incidents. She also referred to this log on other occasions including her call to the landlord on 11 January 2021, when she specifically requested a housing officer visit her to view it. As with previous occasions, the landlord returned the resident’s call to discuss this but did not get an answer and left voice messages. The landlord has separately told this Service it did not receive incident logs from the resident. However, the Ombudsman would again expect to have seen evidence of the landlord’s pro-active efforts to view what evidence the resident had said she had, beyond just leaving voice messages.
The neighbour had also claimed the visitors were unwanted, and the landlord needed evidence relevant to this. The landlord’s ASB policy stated it would seek to minimise the burden on residents of providing evidence, and discuss with them the actions available to it, and the likely outcomes. The landlord did try to explain the evidence it required to the resident, in its calls to her during March 2021. It said that the issues were criminal and explained to the resident its ongoing cooperation with, and efforts to provide evidence to, the police. It also advised of the efforts being made by the police to deter the visitors responsible for the ASB. The Ombudsman would like to have seen evidence that the landlord had clearly explained all of this to the resident earlier in the process. Given the landlord’s calls to the resident were sometimes challenging, and the resident was liable to terminate calls, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have clarified in writing its cooperation with the police, and what evidence it needed from the resident albeit this may not have changed the outcome of the ASB case.
It was appropriate that the landlord had tried to obtain evidence via its ‘noise app’, but the resident had declined to use it, and the other tenants who had agreed to, had not provided any evidence at the time of the resident’s complaint. It was also appropriate for the landlord to install CCTV cameras, but similarly these also had not provided evidence to support enforcement action by the time of the resident’s complaint.
Several other tenants of the block reported ASB relating to the neighbour’s visitors through January and February 2021. The resident made her own report on 5 February 2021. She described the scale of the issue, and the toll it was taking on her in her call to this Service a few days later. The resident further explained this in her call to the landlord on 24 February 2021. This Service prompted the landlord to handle the matter as a complaint on 2 March 2021, and it was appropriate for the landlord to call the resident to discuss this with her on 4 March 2021.
It was appropriate for the landlord to discuss the matter several times with the resident over the course of her complaint in March and April 2021, and to signpost her to support services. Based on the landlord’s records of those discussions, it was also reasonable for it to conclude that the only outcome acceptable to the resident was a direct move. It was appropriate for the landlord to focus stage two of its complaint process on this outcome, and to advise the resident it considered this as urgent with a view to her health and welfare.
The landlord did evidence it had responded to the resident’s ASB reports in line with its ASB policy, and that it had worked in partnership with the police throughout. The police emails from February 2021 detailed its ‘ASB Risk Management Plan’. They made specific reference to the limited powers available to the landlord, and made clear the issues at the block were a matter for the police to resolve. The landlord did go on to take enforcement action against the neighbour some months after the resident’s complaint, when it presumably had evidence to do so.
The Ombudsman does fully recognise how difficult the events described would have been for the resident, and the toll she has described it as taking on her. The landlord’s ASB policy made clear the resident’s obligation to respond to the landlord’s contacts without undue delay. However, the Ombudsman would expect to have seen greater efforts at making contact, particularly at a time where home visiting options were limited, and has made a recommendation to this regard. Nevertheless, it is the view of the Ombudsman that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.

The landlord’s handling of the resident request to move

The landlord’s lettings policy allowed for it to offer direct match managed moves to residents in exceptional circumstances, including safeguarding concerns. As previously explained, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence related to the managed move offered to the resident prior to her complaint. The landlord has referred to the property offered as a one bedroom property, in line with the resident’s housing need, and close to her family. The resident’s hand written notes from the time of her complaint suggested she had declined it, as the property had a wet-room but she wanted a bath.
The landlord offered the resident a further managed move as part of its complaint response on 20 April 2021, when it explained its concerns for the resident’s health and welfare. This was consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy, which stated it would only resolve ASB issues by moving people in extreme situations, where there was a risk to resident safety.
All social housing providers have limited vacant properties available at any given time, which they are obliged to allocate appropriately and make best use of. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to advise it would discuss the resident’s requirement with her, and try to accommodate them as closely as possible, but may not be able to match all of her requests.
The resident had said she would only accept a two bedroom property, which was beyond her housing need. However, the landlord’s records demonstrated it had considered this against the welfare needs of the resident, and as such it was reasonable to offer a two bedroom bungalow to the resident in July 2021. This showed that it was resolution-focused and it took appropriate steps to try to secure a move for the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request to move property.

Reasons

Whilst the landlord acted in line with its ASB policy, there were shortcomings and areas for improvement with its communications, and the records it provided to this Service. However, there was no service failure with the landlord’s overall handling of the ASB, as it took appropriate steps to investigate, offer support, liaise with other involved agencies, and improve block security.
The landlord acted in line with its ASB and Lettings policies in its decision to offer and support the resident with a direct match managed move to another property. The landlord appropriately advised the resident it would accommodate as many of her property requirements as possible, but may not be able to match them all. The landlord demonstrated that it had considered and prioritised the resident’s circumstances and welfare, by its decision not to implement the ‘one time only offer’ policy it had previously advised the resident of, and by its willingness to offer properties beyond the resident’s housing need.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord review its communication and record keeping processes with regards to resident reports of ASB, particularly when dealing with vulnerable residents.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions in regards to this recommendation.