Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust (202207011)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207011

Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust

18 December 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of issues with bin store maintenance.
2. The resident’s reports of drug dealing from a neighbouring property.
3. The resident’s concerns about communal window cleaning and grounds maintenance.
The resident’s request that the landlord remove signage from the building and for repairs and redecoration to a cupboard ceiling.
The Ombudsman will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied her home a second floor, one–bedroom flat in a block within an estate. She had an assured tenancy which had begun on 25 September 2019.

Legal and policy framework

Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord had an obligation to keep the common parts in reasonable repair and fit for use by the resident. Its website states that it is the landlord’s responsibility “to make sure that (the landlord) owned grounds maintenance areas are kept as they should and ensure the grass, hedges, shrubs and pathways are kept neat and tidy”.
Under the tenancy agreement, the resident must not to commit antisocial behaviour (ASB), which included allowing the property or any communal areas to be used for dealing in, or the illegal use of, any controlled drug. The resident also had an obligation to dispose of all rubbish securely, safely, and hygienically. It is reasonable to assume that these terms applied to the neighbouring tenants in the block.
The landlord did not provide its ASB policy to this Service, however its website suggests that residents should report any instances of substance misuse and/or the dealing to the police, as it is a criminal offence. The website also stated that “everyone has the right to enjoy their home and live peacefully alongside their neighbours. To make sure this is possible each person must play their part”.
The landlord operated a two-stage complaints procedure. It would respond within 10 working days at Stage 1 and 20 working days at Stage 2. Prior to its September 2022 policy, the landlord had a “pre-investigation stage”. There was no exclusion for complaints about ASB under either the 2020 or 2022 policy.

Chronology

In 2020, the landlord carried out a repair to the bikeshed and a new lock was fitted to the bin store. On 28 January 2021, the landlord raised a job to collect excess rubbish and change the bin store lock as the bin store communal gate lock had been “forced”.
On 8 April 2021, the landlord logged the following complaint by the resident as an “informal” complaint:
1. She was unable to access a bikeshed.
2. While her neighbours had been arrested, they continued to deal drugs. She was scared to go out of the building at night.
3. The bin store lock had been broken again and residents were “dumping all sorts” into the bins.
4. The bin store did not get cleaned.
5. The landscaping was “appalling”.
An internal email of 12 April 2021 stated as follows:
1. It was working with the police in relation to the allegations of drug dealing. The drug dealing allegations were being addressed as a legal case.
2. It considered this not to be a service complaint, but a ASB case.
On 12 April 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident stating it had “escalated” the complaint to an investigation stage.
On 27 April 2023, the landlord wrote its response under the “investigation stage” (stage 1) as follows:
1. The landlord agreed to change the locks on the bin store to a padlock, with a key for the residents of the flats as this was more secure than the coded bolt.
2. It agreed to install grab rails in the bikestore, and a bolt and padlock with a key to be provided to all residents of the flats.
3. The ASB had been logged with its ASB team. It was working with both police and residents. It had written to all residents regarding the dog fouling.
4. It upheld her complaint.
The resident replied on 29 April 2021 to report (car) “drivers” going into the bin store. She suspected it was being used as a “drugs drop”. She asked what steps the landlord was taking to secure the bin store. Internally, the landlord considered this to be a report and should be “police led”.
According to internal emails in early May and June 2021 and the landlord’s repair log, the landlord arranged locks for the bin store and bikestore and distribution of the keys to secure bin store, as requested by ASB team. It considered that the door may have been kicked in and it required securing.
On 21 June 2021, the resident made a complaint as follows:
1. No action had been taken regarding the bikeshed or the drug dealing.
2. No one was able to access the bikeshed after a replacement lock had been placed on the bikeshed. She asked if she could rent the shed for storage use.
3. She requested that the landlord inspect the cleaning and landscaping. The glass and window were not cleaned.
The landlord escalated the complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the following complaint and logged it at the “investigation stage” as follows:
1. Her reports of visitors and vehicles going to her neighbours. She asked the landlord to report this to the police. The landlord stated that the reports had been passed onto its ASB team. The issue was excluded from the complaint responses.
2. She reported a cannabis smell in the common parts of the block.
3. She wanted the landlord to inspect the works undertaken by both the cleaners and the landscaping team. Mowing and hoovering once a month was “not enough”. The glass on the stairs and windows had not been cleaned “for months”.
On 22 June 2021, the resident wrote to ask why the fence has been pulled down on top of all the plants.
The landlord made enquiries and established that there was no timescale for the landscaping/turfing the area by the developer but had requested an update.
There followed an internal investigation by the landlord in relation to the various issues raised by the resident.
1. Cleaning had been carried out on 9 June 2021 and concentrated on the skirting boards and walls.
2. A padlock had been added to the bin store as a result of various ASB issues and other residents storing their bins and putting in their rubbish. This caused the bins to overflow. The bin store was for exclusive use of the flats, not for the other residents or visitors to the area.
3. There were additional works for the fencing and landscaping being carried out by the developer.
On 8 July 2021, the landlord wrote its response to the resident’s complaint of 22 June 2021 as follows:
1. It would be inspecting the building at the earliest opportunity after the cleaners would undertake a formal audit. It invited to meet with the resident.
2. The grass–cutting schedule was approximately every 2 weeks. However, due to the poor quality of the landscaping left by the developer, it was very difficult to get a satisfactory level of maintenance when the grounds are so poor.
3. The developer was replacing the failing fence line next to the railway but there was still restricted access to the track. It hoped for this work to be completed by the end of that week The landscaping was to be undertaken once the fencing works were complete. It had scheduled a “catch up” in early August for a timescale for the landscaping works.
4. It had advised the cleaning contractor to ensure the glass cleaning was undertaken on every visit. A window cleaner had not been appointed once the development was handed over and had since requested the flats were included on the cleaning scheduled every 3 months. This would only include any communal windows, internally and externally.
5. The issue surrounding the use of cannabis was being dealt with by its ASB team.
6. It had upheld the complaint.
On 14 July 2021, the resident reported that the bins had been “out all over the road yet again”.
The resident replied on 14 July 2021 asking for the complaint to be escalated. She reported that the lock on the bin store was broken. The bikeshed lock had still not been replaced weeks after it being reported.
On 28 July 2021, the resident said she would attend a residents’ meeting to discuss grounds maintenance, safety, and security on the car park, bins and bikeshed. It was to be a “Meet & Greet” on 25 August 2021. The landlord invited residents to join a group which aim was to “constructively challenge the (landlord’s) service quality and performance, influence policy and procedure development, and to ensure the (landlord’s) decisions are in the best interests of our customers”.
According to a subsequent email, the meeting was cancelled due to a lack of interest. However, “key managers” including repairs, ASB, the neighbourhoods, and development team would be at the estate on 20 September 2021.
On 3 August 2021, the landlord wrote with its review response as follows:
1. Due to complex nature of the complaint there have been various teams working on differing aspects. It hoped to consolidate them in to one final response. It summarised the concerns as:
  1. Continued issues with the bin store lock and access and bikeshed.
  2. Ongoing ASB.
  3. She wanted ongoing updates on the work to improve the estate and surrounding area and resolution on the bin store and bikeshed.
2. It would add the bin store to its weekly cyclical inspection regime to ensure that the lock was in full working order and ensure that every resident had a key for access purposes.
3. It would raise the uses for the bikeshed at the planned consultation.
4. The ASB was being investigated by the police, the landlord, and “other partners”. It could not disclose any information from the investigation but was “working hard” to eliminate any such behaviour from the estate.
5. It believed that the main way to resolve this complaint and look to build this relationship was at the upcoming resident event.
6. It upheld the complaint.
The resident replied on 3 August 2021 that the response did not deal with the issue that no-one had been able to get access the bikeshed for over 2 months because someone had put their own padlock on.
On 4 August 2021, a job was raised to chase the issue of the bikeshed locks.
The landlord considered on 5 August 2021 that it could remove any lock that was not theirs. Any locks on the bikeshed/bin store area had keys in a keysafe box attached to the bikeshed brickwork. This was not a priority job, given the staffing levels due to the pandemic, and would not be done until week commencing 16 August 2021.
According to an internal email of 11 August 2021, the head of repair offered to meet the resident on 16 August 2021.
On 26 August 2021, a job was raised to remove rubbish/debris and/or white goods from communal area and a mattress in the bin store.
On 14 September 2021, the landlord wrote stating it would address all previous complaints, their outcomes and if they have been re-raised or resolved. He had spoken to her. It set out as follows:
1. It was going to address the grass maintenance and land fencing at review.
2. The ASB (use of the bin room and police action) was referred to its complaints team and would not be addressed as a complaint. It had written to all neighbours asking that they report ASB to the landlord.
3. It summarised the course of the resident’s previous complaints.
4. It had escalated the inspection of contractor works for cleaning and landscaping and the grass cutting. It would be visiting at the earliest opportunity after the cleaners have been to undertake a formal audit.
5. The grass cutting schedule was approximately every 2 weeks. However, due to the poor quality of the landscaping left by the developer, it was very difficult to get a satisfactory level of maintenance when the grounds are so poor.
6. The developer was due to replace the failing fence line next to the railway, but there was still restricted access to the track. The work was due to be completed by the end of that week. The landscaping was to be undertaken once the fencing works were completed.
7. It had a scheduled “catch–up” with the developer in early August.
8. The landlord had instructed the cleaning contractor to ensure the cleaning of the glass in the common parts be undertaken on every visit.
9. A window cleaner had not been appointed when the development was handed over. The communal external and internal windows of the block were to be included on the cleaning scheduled every 3 months.
10. The issue surrounding the use of cannabis was being dealt with by its ASB team.
11. It would only review the following points:
  1. The landscaping and grounds work.
  2. The fencing adjacent to the open land and railway, making it accessible for drug dealers.
On 20 September 2021, the landlord sent a round robin letter regarding the bins to the block occupants.
On 30 September 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident with its review response regarding the landscaping and grass cutting as follows:
1. It had met with the resident on 20 September 2021. It was ”really disappointed” with the standard of these areas, particularly the grassed areas. The laying of turf appeared to be of a poor standard which has made the work of its grounds maintenance team “nigh on impossible”. One section of the fencing was in reasonable condition and “fit for purpose”. Another section was in very poor condition. The areas were still within the defects liability period. It was meeting with the developer on 25 October 2021 where it would press for an “early fix” to the standard of workmanship of the landscaping. It would update the resident. It upheld the complaint and apologised for the ongoing delay in resolving it.
2. It was agreed, that from a safety point of view, a number of specified lights were needed to cover the carpark and the front door access area. It set out timescales for the repairs and works.
On 1 October 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord stating that she was passing on reports “from neighbours who are too frightened to report it”. A neighbour had been “in and out of the flat bin store on numerous occasions”. Someone had dumped a garden spade in there. The bins were damaged. There was damage to a neighbour’s window, a driver of a car was hammering on the door and shouting, and another car bringing a “pizza delivery”. She asked the landlord to consider installing CCTV over the bin store and sufficient outdoor lighting.
This complaint was passed to the ASB team for investigation. It noted ongoing actions that it could not share with the resident. It did not consider this to be a service complaint but a report.
On 4 October 2021, the resident reported she had been threatened by a neighbour’s visitor who denied the allegations and made a counter allegation. The case was closed on 21 October 2021 as there was no supporting evidence to take matter any further including that there were no “independent” witnesses, no CCTV evidence and the neighbours had made no admissions to the allegations.
In December 2021, the resident reported that there was no lock on the bikeshed nor an update on the landscape. The grass had not been “cut for weeks”.
On 21 December 2021, the landlord wrote stating that the developer had committed to re-turfing the area in January 2022. It apologised for the delay in the update. It had provided a number of bikeshed locks and would carry out a consultation exercise about the use of the space starting in January 2022. It offered £25.00 for inconvenience of ongoing matters.
On 7 January 2022, the resident suffered a leak from a pipe in the loft space in the building into the resident’s hall cupboard. To date the resident has not referred a complaint regarding the leak itself to this Service, however she referred the complaint about remedial works arising from the leak. The landlord described the damage caused as “decorative”. It apologised to the resident that this was unsightly and inconvenient. It set out that the remedial works fell within its “non-urgent” repair response commitment.
In the meantime, the resident continued to chase the landlord regarding the outhouses, remedial works, and landscaping.
On 24 January 2023, the landlord sent out a consultation letter asking the block resident’s views on whether to replace the doors of the bikeshed, whether to make them lockable and a question about the grab rails.
On 17 February 2022, the landlord wrote with its review response as follows:
1. The landlord would arrange an inspection of the ceiling cupboard during week commencing on 21 February 2022 and in addition to checking the integrity of the ceiling, it would request that a date for making good any damage was confirmed.
2. It noted that the following remained outstanding: providing a lock for the bin store, ongoing ASB including alleged drug dealing, the quality of the internal cleaning and window cleaning, and accessibility and security of the bike store. It proposed arranging a meeting with residents to discuss the issues and agree timescales for completing the work.
3. It accepted that there had been a number of issues she was dissatisfied with and that the common theme appeared to be communication. While it intended to close the complaint, should any of the issues raised not be addressed, she could contact the writer to the letter directly and for the complaint to be re-opened.
According to an internal email of 1 March 2022, the landlord was arranged to meet with residents in the following two weeks. It had not been able to get the developer to provide any details of their intentions to do the landscaping work. It would arrange for its legal team to write to them.
On 1 March 2022, it informed the resident that the developer had until the end of that week to respond with a date for the landscaping works. If it failed to do so it would arrange for another contractor to attend. It would confirm availability later in the week along with updates on the landscaping, door entry and inspection of the cupboard ceiling.
An inspection of the cupboard ceiling was carried out on 15 March 2023 or 8 April 2023.
On 6 April 2022, the resident requested the grass be cut pending the developer completing the works at the end of April 2022. On 11 March 2022 and 28 March 2022, there had been weeding/spraying and shrubs. The contractor was due to attend on 8 April 2022 and was to cut the grass “as short as possible”.
On 7 April 2022, the landlord arranged to provide bin store keys and in the subsequent few days and raised a job on 11 April 2022 to adjust the bin store lock, provide keys to residents and carry out repairs to the padlock.
On 25 April 2022, the resident wrote as follows:
1. The drug dealing was still continuing and she had requested videos she said had captured this from neighbours..
2. An operative attended to address the redecoration to the ceiling cupboard at the end of the appointment time, as she was about to leave her home. He was only to “spray something on the ceiling” and not paint it.
3. She was “still” awaiting confirmation as to the extent of the landscaping works by the developer.
On 26 April 2022, a job was completed to stain block the ceiling of the hall cupboard and paint whole ceiling with magnolia anti–fungal paint. According to an internal email of 26 April 2022, the ceiling would only be sprayed with the stain block because if it was painted it would just bleed through again. The ceiling itself was “ok” and “just needed the water marks treating”.
The landlord wrote on 26 April 2022 as follows:
1. Its repairs inspection would be the following day. Once sprayed, the ceiling would not require painting, but the landlord would confirm this at the inspection.
2. Its ASB team would contact the resident to discuss ongoing issues.
On 27 April 2022, the landlord internal email stated that the police informed the landlord that there had been no reports of criminal activity. The resident had declined to contact the police herself.
On 29 April 2022, the landlord received a report with objections from other residents to the bin store being locked.
On 27 May 2022, the landlord reported that the landscaping works would begin the week commencing 6 June 2022. It would find out when the grass would be cut.
On 27 June 2022 the resident reported that she was still waiting for the landscaping works to be carried out. She requested that the grass be cut. She reported that the bin store lock was broken “yet again”. It needed a “proper lock” and CCTV. There had been an agreement to remove “plaques” (or signage) from outside the building. Drug dealing continued. The cupboard ceiling had still not been sorted out. Communal windows had “never been cleaned”.
On 4 July 2022, the landlord wrote a response to the resident’s “enquiries” as follows:
1. The lock was adjusted in April 2022. The matter as considered to have been closed. Other residents had questions why it was locked.
2. There had been no agreement to remove the signage. It invited further details from the resident about her report.
3. The resident had not witnessed any of the ASB incidents herself. The enforcement team had investigated and wherever possible taken action on allegations of drug dealing. It had explained that a number of interventions took place in 2021 and that there had been no further reports since.
4. It had explained that the lack of reports limited what the landlord could do.
5. The police had refused to provide the landlord with information in relation to a warrant so it had been unable to progress the matter. It had contacted residents and explained the ways how they could report matters anonymously and how it could support them.
6. The landlord had installed additional lighting at the estate and it continued “to keep all other options for evidence gathering in mind”. It required co-operation from residents. It had agreed that:
  1. The resident to encourage any reports be made direct to the landlord, the police or anonymously through Crimestoppers
  2. The landlord had sent a “general letter” regarding ASB and how to report it.
  3. The police had reported that it had received no new reports and that they had also covert cameras in the area for a number of weeks but nothing “of note” had been picked up.
  4. It had contacted the neighbours the resident said possessed evidence of drug dealing but had not received any contact back. ASB disputes did not form part of its complaints policy or procedure.
  5. On 27 April 2022, the job to rectify the water marks to the cupboard ceiling would only be sprayed with the stain block because if it was painted it would just bleed through again. The ceiling itself was “ok” and just needed the water marks treating.
  6. It would investigate the standard of cleaning with its contractor.
  7. The landscaping works were to take place following completion of the block paving/road surfacing works and would update the resident.
  8. Grass cutting was on the schedule for grounds maintenance.
  9. The repeat complaints (including the grass cutting and standard of cleaning) would be addressed as an enquiry but if there had been failure would raise through complaints.
On the same day, the resident wrote referring to a conversation with housing officers at her house about removing signage due to the reputational concerns about the rest of the estate blaming flat residents for ongoing drug dealing.
On 8 July 2022, the landlord wrote as follows:
1. It would investigate the issue about the signage.
2. It would raise the works to the cupboard with its repairs team to attend.
3. She should refer to her complaints regarding the locks and the landscaping to this Service as she had exhausted the complaints procedure. It would not respond further to the following aspects, the bin store, ASB, and landscaping works.
On 15 July 2022, the landlord wrote, having made internal enquiries, stating it recalled the discussion about the signage but did not confirm that the signage would be removed. It did not uphold the complaint.
On 18 August 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident warning it may consider restricting her contact with it. A number of issues were deemed to be service requests, not complaints. The ASB team had offered support “in various ways” and would continue to offer this where it was deemed necessary. She could let them know when the cleaning and landscaping had not been completed as a service request, and not a complaint, as these had exhausted its complaints procedure.
In March 2023, the landlord provided this Service with the following:
1. An undated internal note by the landlord stating as follows:
  1. It had fitted a variety of key padlocks/bolts/coded padlocks 8 times since 2020 to prevent residents of other properties using the bin store including for fly tipping and alleged drug dealing. This was supported by its communal job reports, also referred to in this investigation.
  2. Its external cleaning contractors checked and tidied the bin store, cleaned internal communal areas including the internal glass stairway areas, carpet skirting on a monthly basis.
  3. Any excess waste reported to the landlord had been collected by its in–house team on 10 occasions. This was partially supported by its job log.
  4. Its in–house estates operative inspected the building internally and externally on a 4–weekly cycle. This was supported by a log. An internal email stated that inspections took place on 28 March, 8 April, 25 April, 13 May, 1 June, 24 June, 5 July, 1 August, 24 August, 9 September, 28 September, 11 October, 27 October, 5 December 2022 and 10 January 2023.
  5. The standard weekly waste was collected by the local authority.
  6. As at that time, it was in the process of procuring a new window cleaning contractor to start in February and be completed quarterly.
  7. The landlord stated that the grass was to be cut 16 times in March to October. The shrubs were maintained throughout the winter. The grounds were inspected every 4 weeks. While the log only contained dates rather than outcomes, this was supported by the landlord’s log. It provided an inspection report of the landscaping inspection for 23 January 2023 with photos and grading.

Assessment and findings

The bikeshed

The evidence showed that there was an ongoing issue where the resident was unable to access the bikeshed, the lock would get broken and the landlord would repair it. In August 2021, it was inaccessible because another resident had put their own padlock on. This was not attributable to the landlord however it would be expected that it should act promptly in removing the padlock and replace the locks which it was to do in August 2021. On that occasion, there was no evidence that it did so and the resident raised this again in December 2021. It is not clear whether this was fresh damage or whether it was ever replaced.
Initially, the landlord promised a consultation to find out about the uses the bikeshed was put to, with a view to considering the resident’s request to use it for storage. There was a lengthy delay to the consultation from July 2021 to January 2022. The landlord changed its approach, for which there was no evidence of an explanation. However, it was reasonable that the landlord took steps to resolve the issue of the bikeshed by replacing the lock and carrying out a consultation with all its residents.

The bin storage

Again, there was evidence that the lock to the bin storage was damaged from time to time. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to attend to this promptly given the importance of access to the bin storage. However, the landlord did remedy this by providing a lock and by setting up a weekly inspections to check the locks. It was noted that the issue was also caused by residents not locking the bin store and it was a recurring issue. There was evidence that other residents found the security problematic, demonstrating that there was no clear right answer to the issue of securing the bin storage. Overall, the landlord acted reasonably in response to the resident’s concerns.

ASB

The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take allegations of drug dealing very seriously, to work with the police, and to reassure residents as far as it was possible within the limits of data protection and confidentiality that the matter was being dealt with. It was reasonable to expect the resident to report suspicions of criminal activity to the police. However, the Ombudsman would also expect the landlord to take robust steps in investigating, and acting on, allegations of drug dealing, in particular if there had been police involvement. The evidence sufficiently indicated that the landlord was working with the police and that the situation improved.
However, there is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of her right to request an ASB review (‘community trigger’) which gives victims of persistent ASB reported to any of the main responsible agencies (such as the council, police, housing provider) the right to request a multi-agency case review where a local threshold is met. Equally, there was no evidence that that threshold had been met. The Ombudsman will make recommendations in that regard.
Until October 2021, there was no evidence that the landlord considered opening an ASB case for the resident. The cases that were opened were closed for lack of evidence. However, the evidence showed that the landlord was taking the reports of drug dealing seriously. It secured the bin store, it installed more lighting on the estate, it worked with the police, and it wrote to residents to invite reports. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of “interventions” that the landlord said were made in 2021, except a reference to a police warrant. However, at April 2022, the police had not received further reports of criminal actively or identified any criminal activity from its cameras. Moreover, the resident was relaying reports by neighbours that were not confirmed by the neighbours themselves and in those circumstances, it was reasonable that there would be little more that the landlord could do. However, the landlord should continue to monitor the area and the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard. There was no evidence that the landlord addressed the resident’s question about CCTV and will make a recommendation in that regard.

Communal cleaning and landscaping

The resident’s complaint about the cleaning of the bin area was made in April 2021 and was extended subsequently to the internal common parts. The evidence indicates that the landlord carried out cleaning and inspections. While bulk refuse collection was the responsibility of residents under the tenancy agreement, the landlord acted reasonably in making its own arrangements to do so. It was reasonable that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports by appointing a window cleaner and including the glass and windows in the cleaning schedule. The resident was invited to continue to make reports. The Ombudsman considers these were reasonable responses to the resident’s concerns.
It was reasonable that in August 2021 the landlord inspected the landscaping after the resident raised the issues in June 2021. It tried to organise an estate meeting to get all views and met with the resident in August and September 2021. It reasonably identified the underlying issues of the poor groundwork by the developer. It was reasonable that the landlord approached the developer to carry out the work, raising it as a legal issue in March 2022 and arranged some gardening works in the summer months in the meantime. It was also reasonable that the landlord offered to carry out the works if the developer failed to do so. It also arranged grass cutting in the meantime if not as frequently as the resident would have liked. There was an overall delay of over a year before the landscaping works were carried out in January 2022, which would have been particularly frustrating for the resident. However, it was indicated that other groundworks had to be undertaken prior to the landscaping and the landlord took steps to progress the matter. The Ombudsman bears in mind that give these were external and decorative works, which, while inconvenient and frustrating for the resident, meant that the impact was not significant. In the context of the works and the landlord’s efforts to get them done, the Ombudsman does not find any additional service failure.
The landlord’s logs showed that regular cleaning and grounds maintenance took place, as well a monthly inspection. It was for the landlord to decide on the frequency which is not outside the industry standard. The logs showed the inspections dates. It is concluded that the landlord keeps records of the outcomes of the inspections, as is necessary for the sake of ensuring good record keeping, tracking its own actions, and transparency.
For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s apology and resolution constituted reasonable redress in each case.

The signage

It is understood that the resident’s complaint referred to signage the landlord had put up concerning ASB and drug dealing, in particular that she felt this reflected badly on the occupants of the block. It was not clear whether the resident escalated the complaint but it is reasonable to consider the landlord’s response of 15 July 2022 as its final response. The resident’s concerns are understandable. However, the landlord was entitled to consider that warning signage was a reasonable approach in seeking to discourage criminal behaviour. It was reasonable that the landlord discussed the benefits and disbenefits of the signage with the resident and investigated whether there had been an agreement to remove the signage from the resident’s block. The landlord was entitled to conclude that the signage should remain. The Ombudsman does not find there had been a service failure.

Redecoration of cupboard ceiling

It was reasonable that the landlord agreed to carry out remedial works to the cupboard and categorised them as non-urgent. It is entitled to prioritise its repairs. The explanation for not painting the cupboard ceiling was reasonable as were the works the landlord carried out to the ceiling. While there was some delay due to issues with making arrangements for access, the inspection and repairs were carried out not far outside the 90-day timescale and to revisit the works, which, in the context of the nature and location of the repair, the Ombudsman does not find service failure.

Complaint handling

While the landlord at the time had a pre-investigation stage, it was reasonable that the landlord responded to the resident formally. Where it declined to respond, it explained its reasons but updated the resident where appropriate. It responded to the resident’s complaints with proposals for resolution, it offered on different occasions to speak to the resident and to meet with her in order to discuss the issues face to face and in situ. In February 2022, it would consider reopening the complaint after a discussion, if appropriate.
The landlord was entitled to draw a line under the complaints when the resident had exhausted the complaints procedure and to treat communications of the same occurrences as reports. However, the Ombudsman would expect a complaints process to monitor any outstanding actions and to distinguish between fresh service failure and repeat reports. It was reasonable that the landlord stated that it would treat the resident’s communications as reports, unless there was a “service failure”.
By using consistent complaint definitions and references, the course of each complaint was clear and simple to track. This ensured that the landlord did not lose track of the complaints and that it responded systematically. In addition, it created a tracker of the complaints.
It was reasonable that the landlord upheld the resident’s complaints to acknowledge that the issues required resolving. It was not clear however, which aspect of the complaint it was upholding or why. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
It was often not clear whether the landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint regarding its handling of her reports of ASB because it considered the contents of the resident’s email represented reports or an expression of dissatisfaction. Either way, the landlord’s response at times gave the impression that, as a matter of policy, it did not consider ASB the subject of complaint. That was unreasonable, as a resident should be able to complain about how the landlord handles ASB reports. The landlord should take care when distinguishing between a report and a complaint. Given the resident included the reports of drug dealing within her complaints, the landlord could have made enquiries of the resident. It did, however, eventually provide responses as to its actions.
The Ombudsman has taken note that the landlord offered a forum for residents to get involved and provide active feedback on services and policies. The Ombudsman considers that, while not a substitute for the complaints process, this provides a satisfactory means of providing an opportunity for residents to provide feedback and for the landlord to update residents, while ensuring it takes on board the collective opinion of the occupants of the estate. This is also in line with the empowerment standard of the Regulator of Social Housing.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of issues with bin store maintenance.
2. The resident’s reports of drug dealing from a neighbouring property.
3. The resident’s concerns about communal window cleaning and grounds maintenance.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the resident’s complaint about her request the landlord remove signage from the building and for repairs and redecoration to a cupboard ceiling.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints by taking action to resolve the issues and apologised to the resident, which the Ombudsman considers a proportionate and reasonable response in the circumstances.
The landlord reasonably agreed to repair and treat the water damage to the resident’s cupboard ceiling. There was a delay to the work. While frustrating for the resident, the Ombudsman did not consider it significant or disproportionate in the circumstances.
While there was some lack of clarity about how it responded to the resident’s complaint about how the landlord handled reports of drug dealing in the estate, the landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaints took account of the resident’s concerns, acknowledged any failings and offered resolution.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should consider publishing its polices on its website to promote transparency and manage residents’ expectations.
2. The landlord should ensure that it considers informing their residents about multi–agency review in particular where multi agencies are involved.
3. The landlord should continue to monitor the estate and make request from the police under the joint information–sharing protocols, as the landlord considers appropriate.
4. The landlord should, if it has not done so already, provide its response to the resident’s suggestion for CCTV on the estate.
5. If the matter has not yet been resolved, the landlord should carry out the landscaping works promised for January 2022.
6. The landlord should ensure that it considers and explains its distinction between a report of ASB and a resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of ASB, when declining to carry a complaint forward.
7. The landlord should make clear which aspects of a resident’s complaint it is upholding.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within four weeks of this report.