Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202128221)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128221

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

26 March 2024

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 how the landlord responded to the resident’s:
1. Reports of outstanding cyclical repairs;
2. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB);
3. Concerns about CCTV;
4. Complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder of a 2 bedroom property, where the landlord owns the freehold. He moved into the property in October 2001. In line with his lease, the resident is expected to contribute towards the cleaning, maintenance and repair of the communal parts of the building.
On 27 July 2021, the resident attended a meeting as an independent observer. This was at the request of a neighbour (Neighbour J) who was experiencing ASB. Following the meeting, he wrote to the landlord on 14 August 2021 regarding the ASB his neighbour had been reporting and about “visitors congregating” outside one of the communal entrances. He asked the landlord if it had completed a risk assessment, if an action plan was in place and whether it has sent warning or enforcement letters in response to his neighbour’s allegations of ASB.
Following a telephone discussion, the landlord wrote to the resident on 17 September 2021. It said it would work to try and deescalate the issues on the estate and would consider:
1. Installing temporary CCTV;
2. Trying to persuade the two disputing parties to participate in mediation;
3. A community wide good neighbour agreement and consulting with residents on what this would look like;
4. Agreeing with residents an improvement plan for the estate, to include ideas or suggestions for “improving community cohesion”.
On 14 October 2021, the landlord sent the resident a statutory statement of estimates in relation to proposed communal works, as part of the Section 20 consultation process. This included a summary of the observations the landlord had received from residents, along with the landlord’s responses. It advised that the consultation period would end on 15 November 2021 and that it would not consider any further observations after this date.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 November 2021, referencing its email of 17 September 2021. He asked whether it had implemented any of the actions it had proposed, specifically with regard to the installation of temporary CCTV. He said that residents gathering in communal areas was an ongoing issue. He added that one of his neighbours had a party on 20 November 2021, and that children were running around the car park at night unsupervised. He asked the landlord to provide him with an implementation timeline for the agreed actions.
On 3 December 2021, the landlord responded to say it had visited the estate with a view to installing CCTV and had obtained a quote from its supplier. It stated that having a party and children playing outside did not constitute ASB or a breach of tenancy. Although it acknowledged that playing in the car park did pose a “slight” risk, as the area was protected by an access gate. It said it would work with residents on a good neighbour agreement but stressed that this was unenforceable.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 March 2022 to report that the recently installed CCTV was not working. He added that the camera was connected to a communal light but the light was not switched on.
On 10 March 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. He stated that:
1. The landlord had failed to carry out repairs in a “professional and timely manner”, maintain its building stock and provide a safe environment for residents;
2. It failed to manage ASB in line with its policies or listen to its residents’ concerns;
3. Its failure to “provide a coherent and joined-up estate management service” had had a “profound impact” on his mental health;
4. He had raised concerns 8 years ago about how the estate was managed and had exchanged numerous correspondence with landlord about ASB.
The resident contacted the Service to say he had not received a response to his complaint. We subsequently wrote to the landlord on 28 March 2022 and asked it to provide a response to the resident’s complaint. It is unclear from the records what action the landlord took following this. However, on 28 April 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and stated that:
1. It was concerned to hear that he was unhappy with the maintenance, repairs and housing management on the estate over a number of years.
2. Given the issues he had raised appeared to be historic, it had tried to get further details to establish if it was able to investigate further. However, he had not been able to provide further information.
3. Under its policy, it could not investigate complaints that related to matters that had occurred over 6 months ago. For that reason, it was withdrawing his complaint.
4. If his complaint was about issues that happened within the previous 6 months, it would reopen his complaint.
On 11 May 2022, the resident sent copies of emails and attachments relating to the concerns he had raised. The landlord responded on 17 May 2022 to say that the email related to issues from 2018 and 2021, and reiterated that it could not consider issues from over 6 months ago. It stated that if there were matters that remained outstanding, it would consider them. The resident wrote back on 18 May 2022 to say that his complaint was about numerous sub-standard repairs over a number of years that had not been fully resolved. He stated that he could send it a “comprehensive list of repairs outstanding as of this time”.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 June 2022 and asked him to provide details of the repairs that remained outstanding so it could address these with its repairs team. The resident responded on the same day and stated that:
1. He was hopeful the stock condition survey would have captured all the repairs and upgrades that were required.
2. He had made much effort working collaboratively with the contractor over the previous few months to ensure that all repairs were are attended to in a professional manner.
3. He had also reported repairs through the landlord’s electronic repair reporting system.
4. There were 14 repairs and upgrades that he stated required attention. He provided a list, which included the top floor communal area ceiling damaged by water ingress, the bin stores, window hinge and locking systems, an automatic opening vent (AOV) window frame, the communal front door, external render and communal flower beds.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 July 2022 to raise concerns about the quality of the cyclical works and asked it to confirm it would address this through quality control checks. The landlord responded on the same day and stated that, once completed, the works would be signed off by both the contractor and the landlord.
On 21 July 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to thank him for providing clarification around his complaint of 10 March 2022, which it had withdrawn on 28 April 2022. It confirmed that it had reopened his complaint and would respond within 10 working days.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 July 2022 stating he had received a letter informing residents that all internal works in his building had been completed. He said that the front doors and previously painted surfaced had not been repainted. The contractor responded on behalf of the landlord on 26 July 2022. It confirmed that the works were completed but had not been signed off, and explained this would happen once the snagging process had been completed. It added that the front doors were identified as having been “pre-finished and not previously painted”. It apologised for the confusion and said that it had sent standard letters to all residents, at the landlord’s request, rather than a letter specific to each property.
On 29 July 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 response, which stated that:
1. Given his complaint was about the cyclical works, it had referred the matter to its Planned team and asked if the 14 repairs he had listed could be included as part of its programme, and would let him know.
2. While the repairs he had listed were requests for services to be added to its maintenance schedule, it recognised its complaint handling had not been up to standard. As a result, it had partially upheld his complaint.
3. It offered £150 compensation, which it broke down as follows:
  1. £100 for failing to respond within its timescales and communicate effectively;
  2. £50 for time and trouble.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 July 2022 to say it had failed to “address the substantive issues” he had raised. He said that he had provided a substantial amount of information relating to “repeat and ineffective repairs and the poor management of antisocial behaviour” at the estate and asked for his complaint to be escalated. He also wrote to the Service on 31 July 2022 to say that the landlord had failed to address the majority of issues he had raised in his complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 1 August 2022 and phoned the resident on 2 August 2022 to discuss his concerns. The resident told it that mail theft was ongoing and many residents had redirected their mail. Although the landlord had installed temporary CCTV, it did not work and was removed due to faulty electrics from a communal light. He added that police were involved and advised reinstalling the CCTV. There was violence towards residents due to little to no deterrent and “very little support” from the landlord. As a result, the resident stated that the situation was getting worse.
On 5 August 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to say that, according to its local housing team, there were no further incidents of ASB or mail theft reported while the CCTV was in situ. It added that it would be willing to install permanent CCTV but that leaseholders would need to be consulted first as the cost would have to be added to their service charges.
The landlord sent the resident an update on 31 August 2022, explaining that, as it was short staffed, it would not be able to send him its stage 2 response on time. It said it anticipated extending the response date to 7 September 2022, and said it hoped this did not cause too much stress or inconvenience.
On 9 September 2022, the landlord informed the Service that it had experienced a cyber attack, which had removed its access to case files and emails. It advised that there would be a delay in its response. It wrote to the resident on the same day to let him know that its stage 2 response was completed but just awaiting sign off.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 12 September 2022, which stated that:
1. The CCTV was installed on a 3 month trial period. Although it acknowledged it was not fully operational during this period, it believe it acted as a deterrent;
2. While he had made it aware he had witnessed mail theft during this time, there had been no evidence of this;
3. It had no ongoing concerns of ASB and staff were only able to carry out site inspections on a monthly basis. However, cleaners were on site on a weekly basis and any feedback residents reported to them would be passed to the relevant departments;
4. It would look at putting up a resident ballot box to establish whether residents were in favour of permanent CCTV in the area;
5. All the elements within his list of works would either be picked up through the cyclical works or by its repairs team;
6. Replanting of communal flowerbeds had been put on hold until it had established whether there were available funds;
7. It acknowledged it did not fully respond to each aspect of his initial complaint and missed the issues in relation to ASB. It sincerely apologised for this;
8. It upheld his complaint. It had found that the scope of cyclical works were not thorough and inclusive enough, which led to his list being picked up within the schedule. It also stated that, had the CCTV been working, it could have been used as evidence when he had witnessed mail theft;
9. It offered £245 compensation, in addition to the £150 offered in its stage 1 response. It broke this down as follows:
  1. £100 for failing to address the complaint in full at stage 1;
  2. £75 for time and trouble;
  3. £70 for poor complaint handling, and delay in providing a stage 2 response.
On 1 June 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to say that his list of repairs and upgrades it said it would include in its programme had not been completed.
The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 31 August 2023 to say he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 response and that he wished for us to formally investigate his concerns.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has stated that his mental health has been detrimentally impacted by the landlord’s lack of action. The resident’s comments regarding his health are noted, and are not disputed. However, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process. They are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of any failings on behalf of the landlord.
The resident raised concerns about the way the landlord handled ASB reports submitted on behalf of Neighbour J about another neighbour. As this matter is the subject of a separate ongoing complaint, and the resident has not obtained consent to make a complaint on Neighbour J’s behalf, we have not considered his concerns about this matter as part of this investigation. However, should Neighbour J remain unhappy with the outcome of their complaint, they may refer their complaint to the Service accordingly. If necessary, the resident may act as a representative in this matter, with Neighbour J’s consent.
It is suggested from the records that there has been an ongoing history of ASB and poor estate management by the landlord going as far back as 8 years. The resident has also stated that he has been unhappy about the landlord’s handling of repairs over several years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because, with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation. This makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focused on the period from September 2021 onwards. This is when the evidence shows the resident made reports that led him to raise a stage 1 complaint in March 2022.
Following the stage 2 complaint, the resident has made reports of noise disturbance on his estate. He has also raised concerns about communal repairs not mentioned during the complaints process, or that were reported to the landlord since the stage 2 complaint response was issued. As these issues did not from part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, this is not something that this Service can investigate at this stage. This is because the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these reports. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved. The resident may then approach the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied.

Reports of outstanding cyclical repairs

Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that, if the cost of major works will exceed £250 for any one leaseholder, the landlord is required to consult with leaseholders. The process ensures that all leaseholders are given sufficient notice of the proposed works, as well as an opportunity to have their say on them.
The evidence shows that the landlord correctly consulted with leaseholders about its cyclical works programme and sought their views on it. It wrote to the resident on 14 October 2021 with an estimate of the proposed works and enclosed a summary of the queries residents had raised, along with the landlord’s responses. It also correctly advised that the consultation period would end on 15 November 2021, and that it would not accept any further observations after this date.
On 27 June 2022, the resident provided a list of 14 specific communal repairs he expected the landlord to have included as part of the ongoing cyclical works. It is noted that he had included this as part of his stage 1 complaint. However, there is no evidence to show these were brought to the landlord’s attention during the consultation period. Although the records show the resident submitted some queries on 14 November 2021, these related to the contractor’s estimates, and the landlord had addressed these within 10 days, which was reasonable.
The landlord’s Planned Property Investment Policy states that it carries out annual stock condition surveys on a rolling programme basis, “targeted at capturing data from each of its blocks/dwellings over a 5-year period”. It is unclear when it had carried out its last stock condition survey on the resident’s building or why inspections undertaken prior to the cyclical works programme had not identified the repairs the resident had asked it to consider. However, there is no evidence to show that the resident, or any other leaseholder in the building, had brought the 14 communal repairs to the attention of the landlord prior to when the resident raised his complaint. The landlord had acknowledged in its stage 2 response that its scope of works could have been more “thorough and inclusive”, and agreed to include most of those works in its schedule. This was reasonable.
The evidence shows the landlord had been providing timely responses to the resident’s queries about the ongoing communal works during the complaints process. It explained the snagging and sign off process, and why some repairs had not yet been completed, which was appropriate. The landlord acted reasonably when it wrote to the resident on 18 August 2022 to confirm that the list of works he had provided would either be included as part of the cyclical works or completed as a standard repair. It then reiterated this as part of its stage 2 response and explained that it would replant the flower beds once there were available funds.
It is noted that, on 1 June 2023, the resident reported that the repairs he had identified had still not been completed. Furthermore, on 21 March 2024, he reported to the Service that the landlord failed to deliver on the commitments it had made in its stage 2 response with regard to the cyclical repairs. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that it completed the repairs that it said in its stage 2 response it would include in its schedule of works. That it failed to provide any evidence it had taken reasonable steps to meet the commitment it had made to the resident, was maladministration. The Ombudsman will therefore order that the landlord creates a schedule of works to ensure that these repairs are completed without further delay, and make an order of compensation in recognition of the delays in carrying out the works.
The records show that the contractor had written to all residents on 27 May 2022, and its letter had stated that front doors would be painted. It is appropriate that the contractor responded to the resident’s concern about the misinformation and apologised for the confusion caused. It explained that, as per the landlord’s request, it had sent a standard letter sent to all properties it worked on rather than a letter specific to each property.
It is acknowledged that, with large cyclical works programmes, involving many properties, producing a standard letter is a more efficient use of the landlord’s resources. However, it should reasonably have recognised that telling all residents their doors would be painted when this was not the case would have caused confusion. This was a shortcoming. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have given greater consideration to the wording of the letter in order to clarify that some of the works listed would not apply to all the properties. This would have avoided any unnecessary frustration and the need for the resident to raise concerns about why his door was not being painted. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation to ensure that, in future, the letters sent by the landlord regarding cyclical works are clear and free from misleading information.

Reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy states that it expects its residents to show consideration to their neighbours and their community, and not to commit, or allow their family or visitors to commit acts of ASB. This includes harassment, noise nuisance, annoyance or disturbance, to other residents, their visitors or other people in the area. It also states that it will regularly assess ASB cases throughout the investigation using a risk assessment matrix. The policy’s aims include: Minimising the frequency of ASB through preventative actions, community cohesion activities, and supporting residents and staff to address any form of nuisance which may lead to ASB. It also aims to:
1. Tackle the causes of ASB and prevent incidents of ASB from arising and escalating;
2. Take the necessary management intervention and legal action to deal with perpetrators of ASB;
3. Provide customers with appropriate advice and assistance;
4. Work in partnership with other specialist agencies where appropriate.
It is acknowledged that the resident has reported experiencing ASB in his estate for a number of years and that this has had a detrimental impact on him. However, when considering complaints relating ASB, it is not the role of the Service to reach a decision on whether the incidents complained of have occurred. Instead, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. This report will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action and followed good practice.
On 17 September 2021, the landlord sent the resident an email with a plan detailing the steps it intended to take to tackle the ASB he had been reporting on his estate. There is no evidence the landlord attempted to update the resident on its plan or to give any timescales as to when it aimed to carry out the proposed actions. It was not until the resident chased it for an update, on 22 November 2021, that it told him it was installing temporary CCTV and working with residents on a good neighbour agreement.
In addition, there is no evidence the landlord provided any further information regarding the other steps it had proposed on 17 September 2021 to take. It is unclear why the landlord did not adopt a proactive approach to implement the actions it had identified and to keep the resident updated. The landlord’s lack of communication would have contributed to the resident’s loss of confidence that it was making reasonable effort to tackle the ASB he was reporting.
The landlord acted proportionately when it installed temporary CCTV in response to reports of ASB. It is also positive to note that the landlord reported it had not received any further reports since installing the cameras. However, there is no indication it had completed a risk assessment matrix with the resident. This was a departure from the landlord’s policy. It was also a significant failing given that the resident had informed the landlord of the impact that the ASB was having on his mental health. A risk assessment would have identified any support the resident may have needed and any possible interventions it could have taken to minimise any risk to the resident from the ongoing ASB. As such, not only did the landlord fail to adhere to its policy, but it failed to ensure that the resident was adequately supported.
The records indicate that the incidents of mail theft had been reported to the police, who had advised that CCTV camaras were installed. While it was reasonable to notify the police, there were actions the landlord could reasonably have taken. It could have made enquiries within the resident’s block and others to see if it was a wider issue, or confined to a few addresses. The landlord could also reasonably have monitored the situation to see if there was a pattern or if the same residents were being affected each time. There is no indication it wrote to all residents to advise of the situation and to discourage residents from handling mail that was not addressed to them. The landlord has not provided evidence that it had made reasonable efforts to investigate the resident’s concerns further, or demonstrate it had taken the matter seriously.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that it had no ongoing concerns of ASB and that its staff were only able to carry out site inspections on a monthly basis. The landlord’s comments, especially in relation to staffing, are noted. However, it is unclear how the landlord reached this conclusion and whether it engaged with other residents prior to reaching this conclusion. It is also unclear why it did not liaise with the local safer neighbourhood team to check whether it was able to carry out patrols of the area. The resident has stated that others have stopped reporting ASB because they had lost confidence that the landlord would take any action. While we cannot say with certainty why other residents have not been reporting ASB, there does appear to be differing opinions regarding the ASB. In the circumstances, it is therefore recommended that the landlord considers how it can engage with residents to explore whether there is a wider issues with ASB, and if so, what residents consider this to be. The landlord may wish to consider using a ballot box as it did with the introduction of the CCTV.
The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced specific measures designed to give victims and communities a say in the way that complaints of ASB are dealt with. This includes the Community Trigger, which gives victims of persistent ASB reported to their landlord the right to request a multi-agency case review where a local threshold is met. Agencies, including local authorities, the police, local health teams and registered providers of social housing have a duty to carry out a case review when someone requests one and their case meets a locally defined threshold.
There is no evidence the landlord had signposted the resident to the Community Trigger or told him of his right to request one. As the resident had reported that he had been experiencing ASB for a number of years, it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to have made him aware of this option. Although his case may not have met the threshold for a Community Trigger, it would have at least given the resident the opportunity to make a request.
That the landlord departed from its ASB policy in failing to carry out a risk assessment, failed to properly address the reports of mail theft and or adequately advise and support the resident amounts to maladministration.

Concerns about CCTV

The landlord’s CCTV policy states that it will carry out regular checks on the CCTV it owns or manages to provide assurance that cameras and recording systems are working correctly. In addition, it will carry out audits and regular servicing of all its systems. The policy also states that, to ensure the safe and consistent application of procedures, it will have in place documented procedures to support decisions about CCTV. This includes having a formal approval process for all changes to CCTV, including new installations, changes to cameras and removal.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will make every effort to complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days (or 20 working days) of them being reported.
It was appropriate for the landlord to install CCTV temporarily, over a 3 month period, in order to monitor the estate following reports of ASB. Although the records indicate that the police had recommended that CCTV was permanent, it was reasonable that the landlord sought to first consult all residents on whether they would agree. This was because the cost of a permanent CCTV system would have to be met through increased service charges. In addition, the installation of such a system and its maintenance may have met the threshold for a section 20 consultation. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord advised the resident in its stage 2 response that it would look to put up a resident ballot box to establish a for and against permanent CCTV in the area. It is noted from the records that the landlord had since raised a job on 29 August 2023 to install a new CCTV system on the estate.
It is evident that, on 2 March 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to report that the CCTV camera was not working. Despite this, there is no evidence the landlord had logged the repair or taken any further action. Further reports were made on 11 and 22 April 2022 and the records show that the landlord attended to fix the CCTV on 22 April 2022. Although it responded to the third report on the same day, the time it took to attend to the repair following the initial report was outside its 28 day routine repair timescale. Furthermore, it was unreasonable that the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial report, and that it took 2 further reports before the landlord attended to the repair.
The resident states that the CCTV was only operational for 2 out of the 12 weeks it was in situ. In addition, there is a note on the repair record from 25 April 2022, with an instruction not to attend any further issues with the CCTV as it was only installed temporarily. The landlord told the resident that, although it had not been working, the presence of the camera had acted as a deterrent and had the desired effect. However, it is acknowledged that the resident would have been frustrated that the camera was not functioning for most of the time that it was in place, and would not have captured any ASB that may have occurred over the 3 month period, including the mail theft he stated he had witnessed.
The landlord should have been transparent and explained to residents that the camera had not been operational for the majority of the temporary period. The failure to do so would have contributed to the resident’s lack of confidence in the landlord’s efforts to address the ASB issues. It follows that the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the CCTV was inappropriate and amounts to maladministration. The landlord failed to follow its CCTV policy and carry out regular checks on the CCTV camera to ensure it was working correctly, and failed to respond to the report the resident made on 2 March 2022. The Ombudsman has therefore made a series of orders aimed at putting things right.

Complaint

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy states that it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 2 working days of receipt and respond within 10 working days. The landlord’s response time for stage 2 complaints is 20 working days. If it cannot respond within the policy timescales, it will keep the resident informed and agree new response times. The policy also states that it cannot consider a complaint if the “cause of the complaint occurred over 6 months ago”.
The landlord has a discretionary compensation policy, which awards compensation in recognition of 3 levels of impact. It will award up to £50 for failure that had an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. Where there is considerable failure or total lack of ownership, but there may be no permanent impact, it will award from £51 to £160. In recognition of failings that have had a severe long-term impact on the resident, the landlord will award up to £350.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 10 March 2022, and the landlord responded on 29 July 2022, which was 96 working days later. The evidence shows that the landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint. It was only after the resident sought assistance from the Ombudsman that the landlord wrote to the resident, on 28 April 2022, informing him that it had withdrawn his complaint. That the landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint was a failure.
The reason the landlord gave for withdrawing the complaint was that it had appeared the issues the resident was complaining about were over 6 months old. It said it had tried to reach out to the resident but he was unable to provide further clarification of his complaint. It is understandable that the landlord would seek to gain clarity around the issues the resident was raising concerns about. This would help to ensure a proper and thorough investigation. However, the landlord is unable to demonstrate the efforts it made to contact the resident and gather information about his complaint. It has not provided evidence of any contemporaneous emails, letters or telephone calls to show it had taken reasonable steps to obtain the information it needed before closing the complaint. This was a failing.
It is noted that the landlord’s complaints policy excludes any complaint that relates to matters that have occurred over 6 months prior to when the resident raises a complaint. While it is common for landlords to include exclusions such as this within their complaints policies, they ordinarily also retain an element of discretion to consider events that are older than 6 months, depending on the circumstances of the complaint. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code), states it would not be appropriate to have a blanket exclusion like this where there are safeguarding or health and safety concerns. The new Code, Code 2024, which comes into effect on 1 April 2024 states that landlords must not take a blanket approach to excluding complaints; they must consider the individual circumstances of each complaint. It also goes into detail about the actions a landlord should take when declining to accept a complaint.
It should be noted that the landlord did ultimately exercise its discretion and consider the resident’s complaint once he had provided further clarification. However, the landlord’s policy does not clearly set out that complaints relating to matters that are older than 6 months may be considered in certain circumstances. Given the new Code that is due to come into force soon, the landlord should consider this section of its policy further and consider what amendments to the policy may be necessary when carrying out its annual self-assessment against the Code.
Once the resident provided the landlord with the information sufficient to conduct an investigation, the records show that the landlord reopened the stage 1 complaint on 21 July 2022. It then provided a response on 29 July 2022, which was within its 10 working day timescale. However, the landlord failed to address all the concerns the resident had raised. Although it provided a response to the resident’s complaint about the outstanding cyclical works, it failed to reply to his concerns about ASB or the CCTV. Given that the landlord’s handling of the stage 1 complaint was overly protracted, the lack of a proper response would have caused the resident unnecessary additional distress and frustration. The failure to respond to all of the points raised was also a departure from the Code.
The resident escalated his complaint on 1 August 2022 and received a stage 2 response on 12 September 2022. This meant it took the landlord 29 days to respond, which was not excessive. Furthermore, the records show that the landlord wrote to the resident on 31 August 2022 to let him know it was short staffed and that this had impacted on its ability to issue a timely response. It told him it anticipated providing a response by 7 September 2022. It had acted appropriately in keeping the resident informed and agreeing a new response time, in line with its policy.
On 8 September 2022, the landlord informed the Service that it had experienced a cyber attack, which had temporarily removed its access to case files and emails. Although this would explain why there was a further delay, it is unclear whether the landlord had informed the resident about the cyber attack, and that there would be an associated delay. This would have been appropriate.
The landlord acknowledged its poor complaint handling and offered £150 in its stage 1 response, and a further £245 at stage 2, making a total of £395. It also offered an apology for its failing and the inconvenience caused. The compensation award was in line with the landlord’s own compensation policy for a high impact on the resident. This amount is also in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, and amounts awarded in similar circumstances. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, offered redress to the resident which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of outstanding cyclical repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about CCTV.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, addresses its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

Although the landlord acknowledged its scope of works should have been more thorough, it agreed to include most of the resident’s suggested additional repairs as part of its cyclical works programme. However, it had not demonstrated that it had since completed those works as per its commitment in its stage 2 response.
The landlord installed temporary CCTV in response to reports of ASB on the estate. However, it departed from its ASB policy. It failed to carry out a risk assessment, properly investigate reports of mail theft, or provide sufficient advice and support to the resident. As a result it failed to make reasonable efforts to respond to the resident’s ASB reports.
Although it installed temporary CCTV on the estate, the landlord failed to properly follow its CCTV or repairs policy. It did not ensure the camera was operational and failed to respond to reports from residents that it was not working.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s initial stage 1 complaint. Despite not being able to demonstrate that it made reasonable efforts to clarify the complaint with the resident, it withdrew it. In addition, when it did respond to the stage 1 complaint following an excessive delay, it only responded to one of the concerns the resident had raised. However, it make efforts to put things right, acknowledged its poor complaint handling, offered an apology and compensation that was in line with its compensation policy.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. pay the resident compensation of £1095, calculated as follows:
  1. £200 in recognition of the delay in completing communal repairs it had agreed to include in its cyclical works schedule;
  2. £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor response to the resident’s ASB reports;
  3. £200 in recognition of its failure to properly maintain the CCTV or to respond to the resident’s report that it was not working;
  4. £395 that it had offered to the resident for its poor complaint handling in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses.
2. It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by the Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears, where they exist.
3. Provide a written apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for the failures identified in this report.The landlord should ensure that it considers our Apologies Guidance, as found on our website, when doing so.
4. Provide the resident and the Service with an action plan for dealing with the ongoing ASB on the estate that the resident has been reporting. This should include specific timescales for actions, how it will update residents and details and of any meetings it intends to hold with residents to get their views and listen to concerns about any ASB they may be experiencing. The landlord should also undertake a risk assessment, and discuss with the resident any appropriate support or advice it could give or signpost him to, including his right to request a Community Trigger.
5. The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this service within the timescales set out above.
Within 8 weeks of receiving this determination, the landlord to:
1. Review how it maintains the CCTV systems it owns to ensure they are operating properly in line with its CCTV policy. The landlord to report back to the Service on the outcome of its review and any changes it has made in order to ensure it complies with its policy.
2. The landlord to give an update to the resident and Service on the progress of the works from the resident’s list that it stated it would include in its cyclical works programme. If it has not started the works, it must provide the resident and Service with a schedule of works to include those repairs, ensuring they are completed without further delay. If the resident is unhappy with the quality of those works, the landlord to advise the resident that he can raise this as a formal complaint. Once the landlord has issued its final response, it will be open to the resident to escalate his complaint to the Ombudsman.
Within 12 weeks of receiving this determination, the landlord to review its training to complaint handling staff, with emphasis on updating residents if there are delays in responding to complaints. The training should also emphasise the importance of being fully conversant with and following the landlord’s own complaints process. The landlord to confirm it has carried out the review and provide details of any changes it has made in its training as a result.

Recommendations

The landlord to consider how it can engage with residents to explore whether there are wider issues with ASB and, if so, what residents consider these to be. The landlord may wish to consider using a ballot box as it did with the introduction of the CCTV.
The landlord to ensure letters sent by the landlord regarding cyclical works are clear and free from misleading information.
The landlord to review the element of its complaints policy that excludes complaints about matters that are over 6 months old, in particular when carrying out its self-assessment against the new Code that comes into effect on 1 April 2024.