Bristol City Council (202209171)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209171

Bristol City Council

27 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour including staff conduct and his request for compensation.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and the tenancy began on 28 November 2011.
Section 2.9 of the tenancy agreement states the resident must keep the property safe, in good condition, clean and free from rubbish and not allow its’ condition to deteriorate.
Section 2.23 of the tenancy agreement states the resident must not harm, intimidate, threaten or act in any manner that causes or is likely to cause nuisance, annoyance, alarm, harassment or distress to any person living in, or in the locality of the property. The resident will be held responsible if anyone else is involved in such behaviour on their behalf or for their benefit.
Section 5.7 of the landlord’s anti social behaviour policy states
1. The landlord will investigate complaints fairly and impartially; this usually involves engaging with the subject as well as the reporter.
2. Gathering evidence may include witness statements, officer observations, incident diaries, CCTV and communications with other agencies.
3. The landlord uses a Risk Assessment Matrix (RAM) that provides a framework for measuring the severity and persistence of issues and can be used to assess anyone involved in a case.
4. An action plan is the outcome of a discussion with a resident following:
  1. a complaint being made
  2. review points throughout the process.
Section 5.14 of the landlords anti social behaviour policy states it will work with the Neighbourhood Enforcement Team on some anti social behaviour complaints including, noise, smells, fumes and other statutory nuisances.

Summary of events

On 7 April 2022 the resident submitted a complaint to his landlord. The resident stated:
1. He had returned home the previous evening and there was a nasty eggy smell outside his door. He advised the landlord of the smell who then advised a gas company in case of a leak.  The gas company ruled out a leak and stated to the resident it could be a flue pipe for the neighbours boiler or drains that was the cause and to report that to the landlord the next day.
2. He reported it to the landlord’s repairs team that day who attended the resident’s property and ruled out the drains as the source of the smell. He was asked to raise a repair for the flue pipe. When he contacted the landlord he stated the customer service officer was rude and dismissive to him stating “what would the drains man know”
3. The landlords officer said they would raise the job with his downstairs neighbour. He said he had previously raised two anti-social behaviour reports against his neighbour in the previous two weeks and said the neighbour was uninterested in checking out the smell as it did not affect them.
4. The customer service officer was rude and said it could take weeks to resolve. He was left distressed and upset and asked for the issue to be resolved as soon as possible. He asked for:
  1. A job raised in his name.
  2. An apology for dreadful repairs customer service.
  3. The toxic smell to be eliminated.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 7 April 2022 and advised the resident it would issue its written response by 3 May 2022.
On 12 April 2022 the landlords records state it discussed the complaint with the resident and identified the repair log. It escalated the job for earlier attendance.
On 9 May 2022 the landlord called the resident following a call back request made by the resident. The landlord’s records state the resident said he was fed up with his neighbour due to dogs defecating and that the neighbour should not have three dogs. The resident said there must be something that says the neighbour could only have one. The landlord replied that to the best of its knowledge it was ok until a tenant had six dogs.
On the same phone call the resident informed the landlord he had to suffer seven days with toxic gas fumes because the neighbour had ignored a faulty boiler. The landlord responded and said if the boiler was faulty then it was also it’s responsibility, and that the resident would not know that the neighbour had not tried to contact it. The landlord stated the resident became very angry and said that the landlord’s officer was being very rude. The landlord responded to say it was just trying to say that there were two sides. The resident asked to speak to a manager and the landlord said it could arrange a call back. The landlord’s records state the resident started shouting and calling its officer a “very rude little woman” and that she was “just a little woman”. After three warnings the landlord terminated the call.
On 13 May 2022 the landlord called the resident. The landlord’s record state the resident said on the previous Friday there was loads of kids going into the neighbours flat. There was banging, slamming doors, shouting and swearing. This went on for about 2 1/2 hours and an adult was not present. The resident said they sat in front of his door, and he had to ask them to move, which he found intimidating. The resident said he had about two noise incidents a week.
The landlord’s records state it advised on the noise team process and agreed it would send out a noise diary. The resident spoke about an incident when the smell was coming from his neighbour’s property, and they didn’t report it. He was upset about this and about the landlord not giving him a courtesy call to let him know it was fixed.
The landlord said it agreed with the resident to focus on the future and he could call again if he was concerned. The resident spoke about two incidents of dog mess in the last two months, the first of which he reported, and his neighbour denied. The landlord informed the resident it did not think that behaviour met the threshold for anti social behaviour and therefore mediation would be more appropriate. It was agreed the landlord would investigate arranging mediation and send out noise diaries.
The landlord advised that in future it would be more effective for the resident to speak to his neighbour directly about incidents like the ones he reported rather than speak to the landlord, but he could report them if he wished to. The resident said those incidents were causing him anxiety. The landlord queried whether the resident was getting support and he said he was getting support through the GP and wellbeing workshops.
The landlord stated it challenged him on shouting at its customer service staff and advised that was not acceptable. The resident said he was justified because its staff were making sarcastic jibes to everything he was saying and not being professional.
On 20 May 2022 the landlord informed the resident it would be providing noise diaries that day and the telephone number would be on the diary for mediation. The resident was informed he could call if he wanted to. The resident apologised for shouting at the operative he spoke to and said he was frustrated but he shouldn’t have done it.
On 23 May 2022 the residents MP informed the resident it had received a response from the landlord. The landlord:
1. Apologised if the resident felt its call handler was being rude and patronising.
2. Said it had identified the individual and would be following its improving performance procedure.
3. Understood the smell of gas turned out to be rotten eggs but an engineer had been on site and resolved the issue with the neighbour’s boiler which appeared to be causing the odour.
4. It was investigating the anti social behaviour and would follow that up.
On 22 June 2022 the landlord issued a letter to the neighbour regarding anti-social behaviour. The letter informed the neighbour of the allegations made, that they were being investigated and that they may constitute a breach of the tenancy. The letter stated the resident had sought mediation and invited the neighbour to contact them if they wanted to participate.
The resident returned diary sheets to the landlord on 30 June 2022. The diary listed the following incidents:
1. 7 March 2022 dog defecation outside his front door.
2. 8 March 2022 the neighbour moved a wheely bin through the residents gates onto the street and fly tipped rubbish.
3. 6 April 2022 to 13 April 2022 toxic gas smell from the neighbours flue pipe.
4. 22 April 2022 several youths who were the neighbour’s daughter’s friends were blocking stairs and access to his door.
5. 7 May 2022 several youths banging, shouting, swearing and slamming doors.
6. 23 May 2022 after receiving the letter from the Council to discuss the matters, the neighbour responded “what incidents” and she was “too busy”
7. 29 June 2022 the neighbour received a letter from the Council and sent him a nasty text message attacking his character and accusing him of lying, harassing and making accusations. The resident said he was distressed, upset, offended and it was affecting his health with stress and anxiety.
On 1 August 2022 the resident informed the landlord of two further incidents on:
1. 17 July 2022 youths banging balls against his walls and windows and dogs barking incessantly between 8:30pm and 9:30pm.
2. 01 August 2022 the neighbour and friends laughing and mocking the resident and family when they left home around 10am.
On 12 August 2022 this Service contacted the landlord following contact made by the resident stating he had not had a response to his complaint regarding antisocial behaviour from the neighbour. The landlord responded the same day to advise it had not received a formal complaint from the resident and it had forwarded the complaint to the relevant service to respond at stage one.
The landlord’s records show that on 15 August 2022 the landlord logged the complaint as a complaint coming via this Service. The landlord noted it seemed linked to a previous member enquiry, but it had never been raised as a complaint on it’s system. The complaint was raised.
The next day the landlord issued it’s stage one response. The landlord stated:
1. It believed the complaint to be about:
  1. The neighbour’s dogs defecating on his front door and was not cleaned up.
  2. The children had blocked the entrance and been insulting towards the resident and his family.
  3. The resident’s bin was moved into the road without his permission.
2. After checking it’s systems it found two open cases concerning the resident’s neighbour:
  1. Breach of tenancy conditions which was opened on 22 June 2022.
  2. Neighbourhood enforcement case for reported noise was opened on 20 May 2022.
3. After reviewing the open cases it found:
  1. Following a call back request in May 2022 regarding the noise complaint, it was reported the resident was rude and abusive to the call operator for which the resident apologised in a later call.
  2. An incident diary was provided on 20 May 2022.
  3. The breach of tenancy case was opened after communications were received of noise, swearing, shouting and banging over a period of time. At that time it was not considered to be anti social behaviour in nature so a breach of tenancy conditions case was set up.
  4. A warning letter was sent to the neighbour on 22 June 2022 about the noise.
  5. Around the same time an MP enquiry was received and a reply was sent.
  6. The incident diary was received back on 30 June 2022 and uploaded to the case.
4. The landlord’s observation were:
  1. A case should have been created when it received the residents initial call, but this was not possible due to the resident’s reaction to its officer’s response to his comments. This meant the normal questions and observations didn’t happen.
  2. Because the assessment of noise and some of the issues raised in the diary were not received until after the case was set up, it meant that the case escalated to an anti social behaviour case and it should have been dealt with at a much earlier point.
  3. Due to limited information in its notes and the officer concerned no longer working for the landlord it was unable to dig deeply to see if any opportunities were missed or notes not added.
  4. Due to the information available in the notes it would say it acted on the information supplied and could not say that it had missed the opportunity to tackle the matter earlier.
  5. It’s officers had gone out of their way to provide a service.
5. It had asked its housing officer to follow up the matters with the resident.
6. It had contacted its call centre to see if more could be done to ensure it did not miss opportunities but it was inclined to believe the call handler acted correctly under the circumstances.
7. There were currently cases running that looked at different aspects of the resident’s reports and as the information was inclusive it was not upholding the complaint that it was not following up the matter.
8. Based on its observations of the case management it should have followed up with the resident after receiving the incident diary and upheld that element of the complaint.
9. It concluded there were a number of delays in the case and failures to pass on the information that was partly due to a housing officer being on leave for a period of time.
10. The landlord apologised as it recognised more could have been done when reviewing the initial report which meant its actions were slow and not fully addressed the issue.
11. It recommended that the resident keep a record of any issues with the neighbour.
On 17 August 2022 the landlord’s neighbourhood enforcement team wrote to the resident to confirm the outcome of his recent anti social behaviour complaint. The landlord stated it had reviewed the diary and confirmed the incidents reported were related to anti social behaviour caused by the neighbour and visitors to the property. The neighbourhood enforcement team was unable to deal with noise associated with that type of behaviour. The letter stated it would keep a record of the resident’s case should future events occur and asked the resident to make further reports if he experienced further anti social behaviour.
On the same day the landlord issued a response to the resident’s report of an alleged breach of tenancy. The letter asked the resident to complete an attached diary sheets and return within 15 days, to report any noise to the neighbourhood enforcement team and any threats to the police. The landlord said it would look at the 15 days of diary sheets and decide the best course of action, speak to the other party if required by the resident and would look to resolve informally between both parties.
On 25 August 2022 the resident requested that his complaint be escalated to stage two. The resident stated:
1. He had received the letter dated 16 August 2022 which he found to be distressing, upsetting, a lie and was a defamation of his character.
2. In the letter the landlord mentioned three incidents and he had reported nine.
3. One omitted was the toxic gas smell he had to put up with for seven days which made him physically sick. A gas company attended on the 6 April 2022 and said the flue pipe was wrongly positioned over his door and the perpetrators boiler had blown a fuse. The next day the landlord sent out a drains man because of the smell who ruled out bad drains for the foul odour and said again like the gas company that the flue pipe needed moving.
4. He called the landlord, and the officer was rude saying “What would the drains man know?” and that as the boiler was the neighbour’s it was up to the neighbour to raise the job even though it was affecting his flat which could take up to a month.
5. After putting up with the stench for seven days he rang to complain. A manager immediately apologised for the poor customer service and got an engineer out straight away and moved the flue pipe away from the door.
6. He wanted to be compensated for that as his neighbour said anything could have happened to his flat if someone had lit a match, the consequences were unthinkable.
7. The landlord in the response started to blame and attack him saying he was rude and abusive to the call operator and a case was not created because of his reaction to the officer’s responses on 9 May 2022. He found that very disturbing and recalled the call handler/ officer was rude and offensive to him saying “she can have six dogs if she wants” when he questioned why the neighbour had three dogs in a small flat defecating outside his front door. He did raise his voice and called her “rude woman” which he told a manager and apologised. He subsequently sent an email to his local MP.
8. The email from the manager to the MP completely contradicted the landlord’s blunt and unapologetic letter to him.
9. His recommendations were:
  1. For the landlord to improve it’s call handlers/ officers poor customer service.
  2. Receive a written apology from the landlord for failure to take his complaint seriously.
  3. Diversity and Customer Services training for staff as they needed to be more compassionate and understanding and not rude and sarcastic.
  4. What support and protection had the landlord put in place to protect him from the neighbour as since it made her aware that it was him who reported her and she was in breach of tenancy, the neighbour had sent him aggressive and threatening text messages as a result.
  5. Full compensation for injury to feelings.
10. The end of the landlord’s letter was contradictory. It said it did not uphold his complaint and that it was not following the matter up. Then said it did uphold his complaint as regards to case management.
On 21 September 2022 the mediation service produced a record of outcome report after working with the resident. The letter stated the resident:
1. Was in contact with his GP and was on the waiting list to receive counselling.
2. Felt let down by the actions and lack of support by the landlord.
3. Had tried to sort things out with the neighbour and had done all he could.
4. Had some problems with insomnia, was in contact with the GP and taking medication.
5. Did not want to leave the property.
6. Would investigate getting CCTV or a video doorbell to make himself feel safer in the home.
7. Would remember that if he needed to ask the teenagers to move again that he had done that before, and they responded well.
On 4 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and informed it of a further incident on 26 September 2022. He returned home to find rubbish (fly tipping) strewn everywhere in his garden.
On 26 October 2022 the landlord issued its stage two response. The landlord stated:
1. It apologised for the delay in issuing the response.
2. The stage one response only mentioned three incidents, as the letter received from the Housing Ombudsman Service only mentioned those three incidents. Based on that it would not expect the officer responding at stage one to have investigated other incidents. It therefore did not uphold this part of his complaint.
3. Following the report of the toxic smell it sent out a contractor in case of a gas leak. The contractor ruled out a gas leak and explained it could be due to the drains or due to a flue pipe near the resident’s door. Subsequently a drains contractor visited and ruled out the drains. The resident rang the landlord and a job was raised for consideration of moving the flue pipe. The resident was told this could take a few weeks.
4. On the same day, the resident logged a different complaint. A few days later the resident was contacted to discuss his concerns and it escalated the possible move of the flue pipe for earlier attendance. Based on that and in its opinion, there were no delays. The matter needed to be investigated to ascertain where the smell was coming from, and the resident was provided a reasonable timescale for work such as that to take place. It therefore did not uphold that part of his complaint.
5. Regarding the resident’s concerns if someone had lit a match, it had sent out a gas expert who concluded there was not a gas leak, and it was pleased to understand that nothing did happen following his report, so it could not agree the resident should have been compensated for that.
6. Regarding the resident being blamed and attacking him, after studying the response, it did not identify it stating he was rude and abusive. The response did state: ‘A case should have been created when we received your initial call. This was not possible because of your reaction to the officer’s responses to your comments, which meant that the normal questions and observations didn’t happen.’. It had read the notes left after his call and based on this, understood why the stage one response stated that. The resident had provided his recollection of the call, and the operator at the time made notes based on their recollection of the call. The call was not recorded so it was not able to listen to it. Based on that, it was not able to determine the outcome of that part of the complaint. Having said that, it noted the resident received a letter of apology from another officer.
7. After studying the stage one response, the response did not uphold the complaint that the landlord was not following up reports of anti-social behaviour, however it did uphold the complaint regarding lack of communication and delays and apologised for that. The response was not contradictory. It agreed the communication could have been better and had identified delays, so upheld that part of the complaint. However, ultimately the cases were open and being worked, so it did not uphold the part of the complaint that they were not being pursued.
8. From the recommendations requested by the resident:
  1. It noted that the stage one response offered apologies as more could have been done when reviewing the initial report, which led to delays. The landlord apologised again for any distress, frustration or uncertainty that may had been caused due to the delays.
  2. All customer facing staff receive customer service and diversity training. Any feedback was investigated, and it noticed the apology letter the resident received noted it would be following their improving performance procedure if appropriate.
  3. It was not aware of the resident’s request about support and protections in place to protect him from the neighbour and it had passed his comments onto it’s service for review. The resident’s Housing Officer would be in contact regarding that.
  4. Whilst it agreed with the stage one response that there had been some delays it felt that the apologies provided at stage one and stage two was sufficient remedy for those delays, so it could not recommend it paid the resident compensation.
9. In conclusion, it was partially upholding the complaint, for the reasons explained.

Post Complaint

On 28 October 2022 the landlord issued a letter that stated following an unsuccessful attempt at mediation it would be looking to resolve the ongoing anti social behaviour. The letter invited the resident and neighbour to sign a good neighbour agreement which was an informal agreement. The agreement would be signed in the presence of the housing officer and a PCSO.
On 11 November 2022 the neighbour agreed to sign the good neighbour agreement. However on 13 December 2022 after the landlord tried to make contact with the neighbour to sign the agreement, the neighbour informed the landlord it was not necessary as they were giving notice to quit the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This Service acknowledges that the resident has concerns about the impact of his neighbours’ behaviour on his health and wellbeing. This Service does not doubt his comments. However, as this Service is an informal alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. Nonetheless, this Service has considered the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour including staff conduct and his request for compensation.

The resident has stated he made multiple reports of anti social behaviour to the landlord. From the evidence provided it is clear the resident informed the landlord of the smell in April 2022.
The landlord has not provided records for the actions it took. However it is clear from the information supplied by the resident that a gas engineer attended the property the same evening the report was made and ruled out a gas leak.
From the timescales in the resident’s complaint it would appear the landlord sent a drains engineer out the following day who ruled out an issue with the drains. The evidence provided states both the gas engineer and drains engineer suggested an issue with the flue pipe at the neighbours property and for the resident to make a further repair request which the resident did and the landlord attended. This was subsequently resolved within a total timescale of seven days. This timescale is considered appropriate.
The gas company who attended stated there was no gas leak. The resident requested compensation for the actions taken by the landlord and the risk if a match had been lit. There is no evidence that the resident was at risk from the issue reported. The landlord’s decision that no compensation was payable was appropriate.
The resident made reports of dog defecation on 09 May 2022 and noise on 13 May 2022. The landlord states it advised the resident of the noise team process in the telephone call on 13 May 2022 and also advised it did not think the incidents met the threshold of anti social behaviour but mediation was appropriate, which it would look into arranging. The landlord also advised it would provide diary sheets. These were all appropriate steps the landlord would be expected to take given the nature of the anti social behaviour being reported.
The landlord stated in it’s stage one response that it was unable to create the resident’s case due to the resident being abusive during the initial call and the need to terminate the telephone call because of the resident’s comments. Although it may have been appropriate for the landlord to state it could not create the case when the initial call was received due to having to terminate the call, the landlord had the opportunity to raise the case during the follow up call made on 13 May 2022.
The resident stated the landlord’s officer during phone calls had been rude to him. As the calls were not recorded, the landlord and this Service are unable to determine if that was correct. The landlord however, did consider the residents reports and reviewed it’s officers call notes. Although it could not determine conclusively if the operator had been rude it did provide the resident with an apology and in the MP response stated it had identified the individual concerned and would be undertaking its improving performance procedure if appropriate. This is considered to be appropriate action taken by the landlord.
From the dates provided in the stage one response the landlord opened a neighbourhood enforcement case on 20 May 2022, this was seven days after it spoke to the resident, informing him it would issue the diary sheets and provide the telephone number for mediation. There was no evidence provided to explain why there was a delay of a further seven days to open the case or that the resident was kept informed. There is also no indication what instructions or timescales were given to the resident to complete and return the diary sheets.
This case was opened 10 working days after the resident’s call on 9 May 2022. The landlord’s anti social behaviour policy states a case acknowledgement letter would be issued within a target of three working days. There is no evidence an acknowledgement letter was issued to the resident.
The neighbourhood enforcement team issued a letter on 17 August 2022 that informed the resident it considered the noise to be anti social behaviour but that it could not deal with noise associated with that type of behaviour. The letter did not explain why it could not deal with it, and offered no option to the resident to have that type of noise investigated or dealt with. There is no evidence provided that there was any other advice or support offered to the resident about any other options available to him. This was not appropriate by the landlord as it was confirming the noise issue existed but provided no options to the resident to try and find a resolution.
The letter also stated it conducted a full investigation but the landlord has not provided evidence of what investigations took place between the case being opened on 20 May 2022 and the letter issued on 17 August 2022 except that it issued diary sheets to the resident on 20 May 2022 and provided a phone number for mediation. There is no evidence the landlord entirely followed it’s anti social behaviour policy including evidencing if a risk assessment was conducted, it’s assessment of the evidence provided by the resident or that an action plan and subsequent reviews were provided to him.
The landlord sent a potential breach of tenancy letter to the neighbour on 22 June 2022. This letter however was also sent over one month after the resident made the landlord aware of his reports of anti social behaviour and the landlord has not evidenced what steps it took during that time.
In the stage one response the landlord stated the case was opened when the patch officer returned from leave. It is not clear why the landlord had to wait for the patch officer to return and why it did not have suitable cover in place if the patch officer was away.
The landlord must ensure that it’s staff keep full and robust records as part of it’s investigations and findings. It should also ensure any further actions or investigations required are clearly noted and identifiable to ensure a resident is not placed at a disadvantage through any staff absence or turnover.
The landlord stated in the stage one response it had limited notes and as the officer initially dealing with the case was no longer working for the landlord it was unable to dig deeper to see if opportunities were missed.
It then went onto say from the information in the notes that it acted on the information supplied and could not say it missed the opportunity to tackle the matter earlier.
Given there was up to a seven week gap between the resident’s initial call in May 2022 and the neighbour being issued with the potential breach of tenancy letter in June 2022 with little evidence of what investigation took place during that time and the landlord stating it had limited notes, it is not clear how the landlord could have concluded it could not say it missed the opportunity to tackle the matter earlier. This Service cannot determine that the landlord conducted a thorough investigation.
Although the landlord investigated the reports of the smell in April 2022 within an expected time period. There were delays in the landlord setting up the case raised in May 2022 and there is a lack of evidence provided to show it conducted full investigations into the resident’s reports. This is considered to be maladministration by the landlord and it should pay the resident £200.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

It is clear from the evidence provided that when the resident reported the smell from the neighbours property he logged a complaint to the landlord and an acknowledgement was issued by the landlord stating a response would be issued by 3 May 2022. There is no evidence the resident received a response to that complaint. If the landlord considered it resolved the complaint in any subsequent telephone conversations it should have still issued a response in writing to the resident and this would have given the resident the opportunity to escalate his complaint if he felt the issues had not been fully addressed.
There is no evidence any additional formal complaints were made by the resident. It is evidenced that the landlord spoke to the resident in May 2022 on at least two occasions, the landlord had the opportunity to consider and speak to the resident about the complaint he raised in April 2022 and missed the opportunity to do so. It is also evident the landlord received an MP enquiry in which it responded to in May 2022 but this did not appear to lead the landlord to identify the complaint made in April 2022 or consider if the resident wished to make a new complaint. This led to the complaint not being considered until contact was made by this Service on 12 August 2022.
At the stage two response the landlord stated it had only investigated three incidents as that was what was brought to its attention by this Service. The landlord on notification of the complaint would be expected to conduct a thorough investigation. This would include contacting the resident to discuss the complaint and ensuring it understood the full scope of the complaint and ensure all aspects were considered. The landlord would also be expected to check its own records for complaints made that may be outstanding or that it may have previously responded to.
The landlord has not evidenced it made any attempt to contact the resident to discuss his complaint. The landlord issued the stage one response within two working days of being notified by this Service of the complaint and one working day after it logged the complaint. The landlord has not evidenced that it conducted a full investigation into the complaint during this time and this resulted in the resident stating all the incidents he had reported had not been considered in the subsequent complaint response.
The landlord however did acknowledge some failings. It apologised in both the stage one and stage two complaint responses for its complaint handling failures which led to delays. In the stage one response it stated it would contact the call centre to see if more could be done to ensure it did not miss opportunities. These were appropriate responses by the landlord.
However, the landlord has not evidenced it made any attempt to contact the resident following being informed by this Service of his complaint in August 2022. The landlord has not evidenced that it conducted a full investigation into the complaint and this resulted in the resident stating the full scope of his complaint had not been responded to in the subsequent complaint responses. This, along with not providing a formal response to the complaint raised in April 2022 is considered to be maladministration by this Service and the landlord should pay the resident £100.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour including staff conduct and his request for compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the residents complaint.

Reasons

There was a delay in the landlord opening the anti social behaviour cases. Although the landlord said it had fully investigated the reports made, while it did take some actions it has not entirely evidenced that it complied with its anti social behaviour policy including not carrying out a risk assessment or action plan.
The landlord did not issue a formal response to the complaint logged in April 2022 and this led to a six month delay in the resident receiving the landlord’s stage one response. The landlord has not evidenced it contacted the resident to discuss his complaint resulting in the errors in both the stage one and stage two responses.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of the report the landlord is to:
1. Pay the resident £200 for it’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour.
2. Pay the resident £100 for it’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
3. Write to the resident to apologise for the errors in it’s handling of the reports of anti social behaviour and the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord reviews it’s anti social behaviour procedures to ensure it is following it’s anti social behaviour policy including conducting risk assessments, producing action plans and keeping in contact with residents.
The landlord should review it’s call handling processes to ensure if a telephone call needs to be terminated any outstanding issues are noted and appropriate action is taken to address any outstanding issues.
The landlord should review it’s complaint handling processes to ensure it makes contact with a resident and has a full understanding of the issues the resident is making the complaint about.