Christian Action (Enfield) Housing Association Limited (202105986)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105986

Christian Action (Enfield) Housing Association Limited

7 August 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint relates to:
1. The landlord’s management of the resident’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) complaints.
2. The landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy and the property is a one bedroom ground floor flat in a converted street property. The tenancy began on 27 July 2009. The landlord has not provided any held details of vulnerabilities for the resident.
In December 2020, the resident raised ASB concerns to their landlord about their neighbour. The resident continued to raise further complaints due to their behaviour, excessive noise and threats. In June 2021, they raised a complaint with the landlord around its management of the ASB complaint.
The neighbour was a supported housing tenant on an excluded license. Following complaints from the resident and neighbouring properties, the neighbour was eventually served with an eviction notice.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s ASB procedure sets out priority levels, timeframes for responses to reports of ASB and definitions and examples of each. These include:
1. Priority 1 – Response time of within 24 hours – “Actual or serious threat of violence” “Serious Harassment”
2. Priority 2 – Response time of within 5 days – “”One off aggressive/abusive behaviour” “Minor intimidation/harassment” “Suspected drug or substance abuse” “Verbal abuse/threatening behaviour”
3. Priority 3 – Response time within 10 days – “General noise nuisance” “Misuse of communal areas/loitering” “Litter/fly tipping”
The ASB policy sets out how it will manage reports of ASB. The landlord states that it will:
1. “Assess incidents involving threats of violence within one working day and all other incidents within five or ten working days.”
2. “Use a risk assessment matrix to help identify vulnerable complainants.”
3. Create action plans to solve ASB complaints.
4. “Keep complainants informed of progress in their case” including method and frequency of contact.
The repairs policy within the tenancy handbook offers the timeframes below:
1. Emergency – to be attended within 24 hours.
2. Urgent – to be carried out within 5 working days.
3. Routine – to be carried out within 20 working days.
Within the repair policy, “faulty locks” are classed as an urgent repair.
The landlord operates a three-stage complaints process comprising:
1. Stage one – The landlord will acknowledge the complaint within two working days, with an investigation and response issued within ten working days. The landlord will then contact the resident to “find out their views about the satisfaction with the outcome.”
2. Stage two – A head of service would investigate the matter and provide a response within ten working days.
3. Stage three – “A panel will review the complaint as an appeal.” The panel meeting would be arranged within fifteen working days of the stage three escalation. The resident would be invited to attend the meeting with the outcome and appeal being provided “within ten working days of the decision being made.”

Summary of events

The resident raised a concern to the landlord on 9 December 2020, as the neighbour, a resident of a neighbouring property (hereafter called the neighbour) had been seen urinating from his window onto a neighbouring window. They reported that the neighbour had also left wet wipes and rotting food outside the doors of neighbouring residents. The landlord reported this to his support worker for discussion with him.
The resident raised further ASB concerns with the landlord on 11 March 2021. This followed an incident with the neighbour repeatedly ringing the residents doorbell at 3am. The resident opened the door for the neighbour, who then shouted at them and accused them of locking the door. The resident reported this had happened before but not at this kind of time. They explained that following this incident, the neighbour called them “threatening trouble” if it happened again. The landlord responded to the resident and advised that this would be investigated and they would be updated once it had.
The resident made a further report to the landlord on 7 April 2021 around the noise coming from the neighbours flat.
In an email to the landlord dated 27 April 2021, the resident claimed that a different neighbour had apologised after admitting to throwing waste into the resident’s garden. They explained that this was in retaliation to the neighbour having thrown drug paraphernalia and other waste into their garden. The resident also made reports of excessive noise from the neighbour at unsociable hours. They explain that this caused a loss of sleep and prevented them from working at home on occasion.
On 28 May 2021, the landlord met with the neighbour at the property to discuss the reports and they agreed to be “as quiet as a mouse”.
On 11 June 2021, the resident contacted this Service to express concerns around the landlord’s management of their ASB report. This Service contacted the landlord and requested that it contact the resident to address their complaint, in line with its internal complaint policy.
The resident contacted this Service on 28 June 2021, as they had not received a response from the landlord about the complaint. The landlord provided a response to the resident on the same day but this was not a stage one complaint response. Instead, it’s response said that it had reviewed their ASB reports but it could not share any further updates or information due to GDPR. This Service requested an update from the landlord on 1 July 2021, asking that it be copied into any response sent to the resident.
On 6 July 2021, the resident met with the landlord to discuss their complaint. The landlord emailed the resident the same day to outline their discussion, it stated:
1. The resident had agreed that noise had not been an issue for the previous three weeks.
2. A locksmith would be arranged to replace the current lock from the communal front door, as it was not fit for purpose.
3. The landlord would attend the property and review the possibility of sound proofing between the flats.
4. The landlord said it was reviewing its supported housing and may be changing some properties. It said it would keep the resident informed when it had any additional information.
5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request that their circumstances be considered when housing future tenants in the upstairs flat. This was due to issues with other previous tenants.
6. The landlord explained that it had offered mediation between the resident and the neighbour. The resident had declined this offer. The landlord maintained that it would leave this offer open to the resident, if they changed their mind.
On 9 July 2021, this Service issued a final chaser to the landlord, as it had not received a copy of any response from the landlord. The landlord responded on the same day and said:
1. It had issued a response to the resident on 28 June 2021.
2. It had discussed the matter with the resident on 6 July 2021.
3. Actions were agreed on 6 July 2021 and the resident agreed to close the complaint. It said it issued confirmation of this by email to the resident.

This Service wrote to the resident on 26 July 2021 to advise of this response from the landlord.

The resident emailed this Service on 27 July 2021 and explained that the agreed actions had not been carried out. They said they continued to experience issues with loud music, causing them to stay away from the property. They expressed concerns around the neighbour’s behaviour and concern for their own safety. The resident was advised to escalate the complaint with the landlord.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 August 2021 at 2:30am to escalate the complaint as they had been woken by further noise from the neighbour. The resident explained that the neighbour had previously asked them to let them know if the music was too loud. However, when the resident had done so, they turned up the music even louder. They included sound recordings taken using the noise app, a mobile phone application that allows residents to record noise nuisance and send it to their landlord, as evidence of the noise nuisance. This Service was copied into this email and replied requesting further action from the landlord.
On 24 August 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to advise that it had escalated their complaint to stage two. It explained that it would provide a response by 6 September 2021.
Due to further loud music being played on 26 August 2021, the resident contacted the neighbour by text message to ask for the music to be turned down but received aggressive responses.
On 6 September 2021, the neighbour was issued with a final written warning due to ongoing noise complaints following reports from other neighbouring properties.
On 7 September 2021, the landlord issued its stage two response letter. Within the letter, the landlord:
1. Apologised that it had not attended to review the property around the possibility of sound proofing. It said it would attend on 10 September 2021 to carry out the review.
2. Acknowledged the ongoing ASB issues and explained that it was working with the neighbour and following its ASB process.
3. It said that it did not receive the email dated 17 August 2021, due to the attachment size. It said that the resident should have received an auto response to indicate the email had failed but acknowledged that the resident did not receive it.

The letter said that it partially upheld the complaint due to its failure carry out the sound proofing review but no further actions were proposed at this stage.

The resident responded to the stage two letter and requested that it be escalated, as they felt the landlord failed to address all elements of the complaint. The landlord then invited the resident to a stage three panel hearing and this was arranged for 22 September 2021.
On 27 September 2021, the neighbour in the ASB case was issued with a notice of its intention to serve a “Notice of Termination of Excluded Licence”, due to three further noise complaints.
On 6 October 2021, a works order shows that a contractor removed the dead bolt lock from the communal door and fitted a thumb turn lock.
On the same day, the landlord issued its stage three letter, following the panel hearing. Within the letter it upheld each element of the complaint and it said:
1. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failure to change the lock on the front door, as agreed in July 2021. It said that it had arranged a locksmith visit to install a ‘thumb lock’ on 6 October 2021.
2. The landlord said there had been service failures around its management of the resident’s complaints and requests for contact.
3. The landlord explained that it was working to find a suitable alternative property for the neighbour causing the ASB issues. It said it was working with the relevant teams and hoped to have the issue resolved within four weeks. It said that it hoped the neighbour would be moving shortly and agreed to keep the resident updated in relation to this situation. It also suggested that depending on developments in this matter, it could suggest short term accommodation for the resident.
4. The landlord said it was currently carrying out a stock survey and it would contact the resident in the new year, 2022, to advise whether it would install sound proofing at the property.
5. The landlord proposed a compensation payment of £600 in response to the complaint.
On 7 October 2021, the landlord issued an eviction notice to the neighbour. This informed them that they were required to leave the property on 21 October 2021. This followed a visit from the landlord on 1 October 2021, during which the neighbour was playing loud music and responded to the landlord’s agent in a verbally aggressive manner.

Actions post Internal Complaint Process

The eviction notice was extended on several occasions to allow the neighbour to find alternative housing. On 2 December 2021, the landlord wrote to explain that the notice period had expired and they were required to leave the property by 7 December 2021.
On 30 December 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to request an update on the situation with the neighbour and raised a further complaint around recent incidents. They explained that the noise issues had continued and there had also been an altercation in the communal area between the neighbours visitors. They said they had been having to spend time away from the property due to these issues.
On 9 January 2022, the resident raised an ASB report as the neighbour had made further threats of violence, following a request for them to turn down the volume of the music. The resident explained that they were unable to leave the property on this occasion as they had tested positive for COVID.
On 12 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord as they had been harassed and insulted by a visitor to the neighbours property. The resident explained that this had left them feeling even more vulnerable and scared of being attacked. The landlord responded to this and the previous complaint and explained that it was working with its solicitors to bring about a resolution to these issues. The landlord said it provided copies of the emails to the solicitors to show the impact of the ASB. The resident was told to keep logging any such instances, try not to engage with the neighbour or their visitors and to contact the police, if required.
On 13 January 2022, the resident provided videos taken by the video doorbell during the previous two days. The videos show:
1. Evidence of the loud music being played.
2. The resident entering the flat and being confronted with the visitor that they said had insulted them.
3. The neighbour and their visitors locked out of the property following “a huge altercation”.
4. The police attending the property, following the neighbour being locked out of their property. The resident said the police attending was a “regular occurrence”.
On 8 February 2022, the resident raised a complaint around excessive noise starting in the early hours and continuing into the day. They said that this woke them, prevented them from carrying out their home studies and leading to them leaving the property in order to do so.
In March 2022, this Service accepted the resident’s complaint for review and information was requested from the landlord.
On 7 March 2022, the resident raised another ASB report due to loud music being played at 6am. The resident said this woke them and prevented them working from home. The landlord replied the next day and said that details of the most recent complaints had been forwarded to its solicitor. It said that injunction papers were being drawn up and that it hoped to have a court date by the end of the next week.
On 10 June 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to report further issues with the noise levels from the neighbour’s property. The resident requested that the landlord reimburse them for a night in a hotel that they felt they had to take due to a lack of sleep due to the noise. The Housing Officer advised that they would forward this request for reimbursement to the relevant person.
On 10 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to chase a response to their request for reimbursement and an update around the court date for the injunction against the neighbour.
On 14 July 2022, the resident sends an email at 5:32am that includes video clips taken by their doorbell. They say that they had been woken at 2:54am by the police ringing their doorbell. Following this, they say that there had been shouting and loud music played through the night. This was followed by another email at 6:54am with more video clips showing the neighbour acting volatile and they say that a “drug dealer” then attended the property. The resident expressed a concern for their safety given the ongoing situation.
On 28 September 2022, the locks were changed and the neighbour was evicted from the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

This Service understands that there were continued reports of ASB after the complaint was considered duly made on 31 December 2021. This is where the scope of this investigation would usually end. However, further events have been detailed in this report and are included for context purposes.

The landlord’s management of the resident’s ASB complaints

This Service has not seen any evidence of the incident in December 2020 being discussed with the resident following their report. Even if this was discussed with the neighbour, the landlord should have provided the resident with some form of acknowledgement of their report. This was a failing, as the landlord’s lack of communication understandably led to the resident feeling their concerns were being ignored and caused distress.
When the resident raised a further complaint on 11 March 2021, they reported that the neighbour had not only shouted at them following the incident, they also contacted them by phone afterwards and made threats. In line with the landlord’s ASB policy, this should have been considered a priority one incident and responded to within 24 hours. This Service has not had sight of any record of this being managed or addressed prior to 28 May 2021, more than two months later. This was a serious failing. The landlord failed to observe that the ASB was escalating in nature and that the risk to the resident was increasing as a result. This Service would have expected the landlord to contact the resident within 24 hours in line with its policy and to carry out a formal risk assessment and put an action plan in place to address the behaviour.
Between 11 March 2021 and 28 May 2021, the landlord had received further contact from the resident to raise noise complaints and make it aware of the neighbour causing issues for neighbouring properties. Those particular incidents should have been responded to within ten days, in line with its ASB policy, but it failed to meet this timeframe. Overall, it took the landlord over two months to address these complaints. These are failings on the part of the landlord as during this time the resident has been left concerned for their safety following threats and they suffered further inconvenience and distress due to the noise complaints, with no reassurance that the landlord was considering their complaints.
In its letter dated 6 July 2021, in response to the stage one complaint, the landlord agreed to arrange for the lock on the communal front door to be changed. This was changed on 6 October 2021, three months after it was agreed. Of note is that the works order to replace the lock was only progressed after the stage three complaint hearing. In line with its repair policy, the faulty lock should have been dealt with as an “urgent” repair and the repair carried out within five working days. The delay in completing this work shows both a lack of urgency by the landlord and a lack of understanding around the ASB reports, as the lock on the door had played a clear part in the reports of ASB.
Further to this, it appears there was a misunderstanding around which lock was causing the issues throughout the complaint. The landlord provided a work record from 6 October 2021 which clearly shows the dead bolt lock on the lower half of the main building front entrance door having been changed. However, the resident has since indicated that the issue with the faulty lock was not resolved until the locks were changed on the day of the eviction in September 2022. It is not clear exactly what the fault was with the main building front door was. However, there was clearly a difference in opinion between the landlord and the resident, which shows a clear lack of understanding on the part of the landlord caused by a failure to investigate the cause of the resident’s concerns. This led to an unreasonable delay in making a small change that would have made a difference. During this time, the resident would have been concerned around a reoccurrence of the issues and the potential for further threats from the neighbour.
Based on the resident’s reports, the landlord was in a position to seek further evidence from the neighbouring properties as part of its investigation but it failed to do so. This is another failing on its part as it hasn’t looked to substantiate the residents reports and the impact that the alleged neighbour was having on the wider neighbours.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that it should carry out risk assessments with each report and create action plans to address them. This Service requested evidence of these actions but the landlord said it was “unable to locate any records of any risk assessments or actions plans associated with the management of the ASB case.” It is considered best practice that ASB related files and records are kept for a period of five years. As the resident was reporting incidents of ASB between December 2020 through to July 2022, with some reports being threats and intimidation, it is a significant failing on the part of the landlord that it did not retain these records. Not only has it failed to follow its own policy, it has failed to provide the resident with any reassurance that it was considering their wellbeing. This is a severe failing, as by not carrying out the risk assessment, the landlord may have been unaware of potential vulnerabilities and impacts on the resident. Its lack of awareness of these could lead to missed opportunities to signpost the resident for support.
The landlord’s ASB policy also states that it will keep the resident informed of the progress of their case. However, it is clear that across the resident’s dealings with the landlord, they were constantly chasing updates, or any indication that it was being managed. This Service has seen no evidence of such updates from the landlord, outside of responses within the internal complaint process or emails acknowledging the resident’s most recent report of ASB. The resident’s emails throughout suggest they feel helpless and alone in dealing with the matter. The resident frequently questioned what was happening in response to their complaints and they detailed the detrimental effects the ASB was having on them. The poor communication was a serious failing and caused the resident to report distress and feelings of isolation.
Although the neighbour was issued with an eviction notice on 7 October 2021, they did not leave the property until 28 September 2022. Within its stage three letter to the resident, the landlord acknowledged failures in its management of the ASB complaint. Between the eviction notice being issued and the neighbour leaving the property, the resident raised several more ASB reports for similar issues around excessive noise, intimidation and threats
The landlord delayed unduly in removing the neighbour from the property. Having served the eviction notice, the landlord should have acted to bring the ASB case to a conclusion in line with the notice it had issued. The landlord indicated that they were seeking alternative accommodation for the neighbour following the issues of notice. While this may have been well intended the landlord had a wider responsibility to the resident and other neighbours all of whom had been subjected to significant levels of distress. The resident was left with an expectation that the landlord should bring about an end to the problems in the landlords stage 3 response and its issue of notice. In failing to honour that commitment and take decisive action, the landlord extended the period that the resident was subjected to detriment. This was a significant failing on the part of the landlord.
Even after acknowledging its failings in managing the ASB complaint in its complaint responses, the landlord continued to manage these in the same manner. No risk assessment or action plans were completed and the resident was not kept up to date, for a further eleven months. This was despite assurances from the landlord in its stage three response that it would keep them updated. This also shows that the landlord has not learned from the outcome of its investigation, in line with the dispute resolution principles.
After the eviction notice was served, the landlord could have sought expedited possession due to the neighbour’s insecure tenure. However, the time taken shows that the landlord has unduly delayed this process. This left the resident in a continued cycle of experiencing ASB, reporting it and then receiving no support from their landlord.
Over an extended timeframe, the landlord failed to take decisive measures to manage the ASB. The lack of such action by the landlord before and during the internal complaint process had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. Following the end of that process the landlord failed to honour its commitment made. This left the resident either feeling trapped in their home, when these incidents occurred, or they were forced to leave the property, including overnight on occasion. The landlord’s failure to apply its own ASB policy led to the neighbour continuing their ASB, preventing the resident from experiencing a quiet enjoyment of their home. When considering the failings in the management of this process, cumulatively this amounts to severe maladministration.

The landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint

This Service has not had sight of an initial complaint being raised with the landlord by the resident. However, the resident contacted this Service on 11 June 2021 around the landlord’s management of their concerns and on the same day, the landlord was notified of this complaint. The landlord said it provided a response on 28 June 2021, however, this was not a stage one complaint response. The landlord provided a unspecific response around the reports of ASB, it said it had investigated the matters raised but did not provide any information or updates around its actions. This demonstrates that the landlord had failed to reasonably accept the complaint that had been made by the resident to it directly, or through their contact with this Service.
The landlord later meet with the resident on 6 July 2021 to discuss their complaint and actions were proposed to address the complaint. The landlord followed this up with written confirmation of those agreed actions. However, this email did not explain that it was in response to a complaint or offer any way to escalate if those actions were not undertaken. Despite requests being made by this Service, the landlord has continued to fail in using its complaint process in addressing the complaint.
The landlord confirmed it had escalated the complaint to stage two on 24 August 2021, following a request to do so from this Service on 20 August 2021. The escalation request came from a report of ASB by the resident on 17 August 2021 that this Service was copied into. The landlord said it didn’t receive the email itself due to issues around the size of the email but acknowledged that its system had not made the resident aware of it. This is a failing on the part of the landlord as its systems shortcomings left it unaware of a new ASB complaint and the resident was been left believing they were being ignored.
Within its stage two response, the landlord failed to address the resident’s complaint in full. There was no mention of the lock change having not been completed, despite this being one of two actions it had agreed to carry out at the property. The landlord then acknowledged the most recent incident of ASB and indicated that it would continue to follow its internal process, despite it having not followed it previously. It is unlikely that the resident would have any confidence that the landlord intended to resolve the ASB due to previous similar assurances that were not met. The landlord provided no detail of it planned to resolve the matter or any timeframe for it to take those actions.
In concluding the response, the landlord only partially upheld the complaint. This was despite acknowledging its failure to complete previously agreed actions, the failure of its internal systems to make them aware of the email being rejected and its failure to follow up the stage one response to ensure they were satisfied. It is the view of this Service that the landlord failed to investigate or respond to the stage two escalation in line with its policy and the Complaint Handling Code.
At the time of the complaint, the landlord was operating a three stage complaint process which was not in line with the Code. However, this Service is pleased to note that it has since adopted a two stage process that is in line with the Code.
The stage three complaint response does address the resident’s complaints in more detail as they were able to raise these during the panel meeting. Each of key elements of the complaint were upheld, landlord offered compensation and some of the actions proposed at this stage are completed efficiently. However, within the response the landlord indicated that after three weeks it would liaise with the resident to discuss alternative options around housing and keep them updated around the ASB situation. This Service has seen no evidence of these actions being carried out of any records of these actions being carried out. This means that at each stage of the complaint process, the landlord has failed to take the actions it agreed to within its responses. It is clear that in utilising a third stage in its complaint process, the landlord has delayed access to this Service and impeded the resident’s right to review.
After the resident raised their complaint, the landlord failed to follow its own policy, failed to learn from the outcome of its investigation and then failed to carry out the agreed actions from it. The result of this was that the substantive issue was not addressed until eleven months later. When considering the failings in the management of this process, cumulatively this amounts to severe maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB complaints.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB complaints

The landlord failed to follow its ASB policy throughout a period of almost two years. The resident raised complaints through the landlord and was assured that these were being managed. However, the landlord failed to carry out any risk assessments for the resident, despite several reports of intimidation and threats from both the neighbour and those visiting them. The resident made it clear on multiple occasions that they did not feel safe in their home, resorting on occasion to staying away from the property in order to feel safe. The landlord never completed an action plan to demonstrate how the situation would be dealt with or how it would keep the resident informed of the status of their complaint. Instead, the resident kept reporting instances of ASB and asking for updates on what was being done, while receiving no reassurance from the landlord that this was being dealt with any urgency or compassion for the resident’s position. No decisive action was taken throughout this time, to ensure the safety and enjoyment of the resident and others homes. The landlord failed to improve its management of the ASB, even after acknowledging its failings. This meant the resident was left feeling unsafe in their home for a significant period of time without any feeling of support from the landlord.

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

The landlord failed to acknowledge or investigate the resident’s stage one complaint in a timely manner. The “stage one response” did not present as such and there was no evidence that this formed part of a wider complaint process, for example, no escalation process was offered. After meeting the resident and agreeing actions, it then failed to take those actions. The landlord then failed to investigate the stage two complaint as not all of the issues were addressed and the complaint was only partially upheld, despite the landlord agreeing that it had failed in the matters it did address. Given its failings the compensation offer made at stage 3 was wholly inadequate. Its poor record keeping also undermined its complaint investigation. In using its three stage process, the landlord was afforded three attempts at finding a resolution, or putting in place a solid ASB action plan to assist the resident with an extremely distressing situation but it failed to do so on each occasion. Following each stage of the complaint, despite acknowledging its failures around the management of the ASB complaints, the landlord fails to show any learning, as these failures continued. This left the resident feeling as though they was not being supported by the landlord and that despite them providing evidence etc, nothing was being done to remedy the situation.

Orders

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB complaints

The landlord is ordered to make a payment of £2,600 to the resident towards the extended distress and inconvenience experienced due to the landlord’s mismanagement of the ASB complaint. This should be paid directly to the resident within 28 days of the date of this report.
If the landlord has already paid the £600 proposed in its stage three response to the resident, this should be deducted from the £2,600, so the payment would only be £2000 if so.

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

The landlord is ordered to make a payment of £700 to the resident for the distress, time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint. This should be provided within 28 days of the date of this report.
The Chief Executive of the landlord must apologise in person to the resident for its failings in this case.
The landlord must initiate and complete a senior management review of the learning from this report, it must advise this Service of its intentions within 6 weeks of the date of this report and bring into its operations its improvement actions within three months of the date of this report. This review must consider the landlord’s oversight framework for its ASB casework management procedures to ensure at minimum:
1. Risk assessments are carried out on time and reviewed throughout.
2. Action plans are completed in each instance.
3. Regular updates to the complainant, in line with agreed action plan.
4. Regular reviews of the complaints are completed.
5. That balanced decisive actions are promptly taken with suitable regard for the protection and welfare of residents subjected to ongoing and significant levels of ASB
6. That ASB casework records are kept and retained to assist effective management and legal requirements.
If it has not done so in the past six months, the landlord to review its complaint management and oversight process ensuring that all relevant staff:
1. Understand the landlord’s ASB policy, complaint policy and the Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code.
2. Recognise the importance of keeping an accurate records of complaints made, responses and actions taken.
3. Review its record keeping practices with due reference to the KIM Spotlight report to ensure it maintains accurate records around all actions taken throughout and in respect of those complaints.
4. Provide complaint responses within the timeframes set out in the policy
5. Fully understand each element of the complaint and provide a full investigation and response to each.
6. Ensure oversight of commitment made in complaint responses through to satisfactory completion.