GreenSquareAccord Limited (202229793)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229793

GreenSquareAccord Limited

25 April 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbour.
This report also considers the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has lived in the property, a 1-bed flat, since March 2021. The flat is located on the ground floor of a block of 16 similar flats.
The resident lives alone but has shared custody of his daughter who at the time of the events was 3-years old. The resident’s daughter would stay at the property with him on a regular basis.
The resident pays a service charge which includes an element for “scheme safety and security” and maintenance of the door entry equipment and electronic gates.
The landlord has stated that it does not have any vulnerabilities or disabilities recorded for the resident. It notes that while the resident references mental health issues within his complaint communications with the landlord, these appeared to be “directly related to his circumstances at the time”.
The resident began reporting ASB to the landlord in July 2022. He reported that his upstairs neighbour was causing a noise nuisance by:
1. playing loud music
2. taking and dealing drugs in the building
3. allowing drug dealers, drug users, and “prostitutes” to use the property.
The upstairs neighbour had been temporarily decanted into the property in July 2022 on a temporary licence while work was completed on his principal property.

Landlord policies and procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy and procedure in place at the time of the events stated the landlord would:
1. Assess the priority of a case based on a ‘harm assessment’ score.
2. Respond to high harm cases within 24 hours, and to low and medium harm cases within 5 days.
3. Carry out and regularly review a risk assessment matrix (RAM) to identify support needs of complainants.
4. Complete the RAM will within 24 hours in high harm cases and 5 days in low and medium harm cases.
5. Agree an action plan and frequency of contact with the complainant.
6. Work with other agencies including the police.
7. Deal with security issues quickly.
8. Update the complainant “a minimum of weekly” and act on “vulnerability or support needs”.
9. Carry out a case review on a monthly basis.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 7 days, and routine repairs within 28 days.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to respond to both stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 10 working days.
The complaints policy states that the landlord may not consider complaints where the issue occurred more than 12 months previously.

Scope of the investigation

The resident has stated to this Service that he was unhappy with the time taken by the landlord to repair the entry system of the communal front door to the block of flats.
It is accepted that the resident did not specifically raise this as a separate issue in his formal complaint. He did however raise on several occasions that the front door could be opened by the alleged ASB perpetrators and offered no security as it had been tampered with. This Service therefore considers that the repair is closely linked to the ASB reported by the resident and so to the resident’s complaint.
We have therefore considered the communal front door repair in relation to the ASB.

Summary of events

On 14 July 2022 the landlord moved a male into the flat above the resident on a temporary licence agreement while repairs were completed to his principal home. The male will be referred to within this report as the ‘alleged perpetrator’.
The resident first contacted the landlord by email on 26 July 2022 to report ASB from the alleged perpetrator.
Diary sheets completed by the resident outline 23 incidents of ASB from the alleged perpetrator between 20 July 2022 and 31 August 2022. The behaviour reportedly took place at all times of the day, evening and night and included:
1. Loud music.
2. Banging.
3. Loud voices.
4. Visitors to the property smoking and using illegal drugs in communal areas.
5. Visitors trying to open the resident’s door.
6. Dealing drugs from the property.
The first incident recorded by the resident on the diary sheets described loud music, banging and loud voices on 20 July 2022 at 11pm. The resident reported that, due to the ASB, he had been unable to settle his daughter who was staying with him overnight.
On 5 September 2022 the landlord visited the alleged perpetrator to discuss ASB complaints from several residents since he moved into the block.
The landlord attempted to telephone the resident on 9 September 2022. He did not answer so it left him a voicemail.
The landlord completed an action plan with the resident on 12 September 2022. It was agreed that the resident would continue to complete and return diary sheets and the landlord would review them and “take action where relevant”.
On 29 September 2022 the landlord visited the alleged perpetrator with the police. It warned him that it would take action if he continued to engage in ASB.
The resident reported to the landlord on 6 October 2022 and 9 October 2022 that a friend of the alleged perpetrator was sleeping in the communal bin store.
On 12 October 2022 the resident reported that the communal front door had been intentionally damaged and was insecure. The landlord contacted the resident the following day and said that its contractor had ordered parts for the door.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 October 2022 and said he had been threatened within the block by a drug user who was visiting the alleged perpetrator.
The landlord visited the alleged perpetrator with the police on 18 October 2022.
On 19 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and said he was unhappy that the landlord was not doing anything to resolve the ASB from the alleged perpetrator.
The landlord logged the ASB case on its case management system on 28 October 2022. On this date the landlord called the resident and advised him it was aware of the situation and was working with the police to “get a resolve”. It asked the resident to continue to report any further incidents.
On 4 November 2022 the landlord advised the alleged perpetrator that his principal home was ready for him to return to. He refused to return to the property.
Between 10 November 2022 and 22 November 2022 the landlord wrote to the alleged perpetrator twice and visited him 3 times. It told him that he needed to move back to his principal home.
On 15 November 2022 the landlord telephoned the resident in response to an email he sent asking for an update. The resident told the landlord that he had been attacked by a friend of the alleged perpetrator while walking to his property. The landlord advised the resident that it was trying to move the alleged perpetrator back to his own property but had to follow the correct process to do this. On 17 November 2022 the resident reported that the person who had attacked him 2 days earlier had been seen leaving the alleged perpetrator’s property with a machete.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 2 December 2022. The case notes stated that the resident was frustrated that the landlord had done nothing to remove the alleged perpetrator from the property. The landlord advised the resident that it was in the process of moving him but that it had to follow procedures. The resident said he wanted to speak to a manager about the handling of the issue.
The landlord wrote to the alleged perpetrator on 2 December 2022 and advised that it had received several reports that he and his visitors were engaging in ASB. The landlord visited him on 12 December 2022 and he again said he would not leave the property.
The landlord’s ASB case notes of 12 December 2022 state that the landlord had received recordings via the NoiseApp from the resident. The NoiseApp is a mobile phone application that allows residents to make sound recordings and submit them to their landlord for review.
On 19 December 2022 the landlord texted the resident and said it had received and listened to his NoiseApp recordings. It told the resident that it had to follow the correct procedures to remove the alleged perpetrator. It explained that, due to data protection, it was limited in what information it could disclose to him about the actions it was taking. The landlord also said that its contractor would be fixing the communal front door on 4 January 2023.
Between 21 September 2022 and 31 December 2022 the resident submitted 117 sound recordings of the alleged perpetrator to the landlord. These took place over 32 separate dates. The resident reported noise from loud music, loud voices, and banging.
On 17 January 2022 the landlord sent a text message to the resident and said it was chasing its contractor for an update regarding the communal front door repair. It also said that the ASB case was now with its tenancy enforcement team who were going through the legal process.
The landlord’s case notes show that on 20 January 2023 it received reports from another resident in the block who stated the alleged perpetrator had been “kicking off” and was verbally abusive to them.
The resident sent a text message to the landlord on 21 January 2023 and stated that he had had an altercation with the alleged perpetrator. He described him as “screaming” and being “high” on drugs.
On 23 January 2023 the landlord served the alleged perpetrator with a notice to quit which required him to leave the property within 4 weeks.
Also on 23 January 2023 the landlord received a report from a further resident in the block who stated that armed police had attended the alleged perpetrator’s property the night before. They said that his visitors were sleeping and smoking drugs in communal areas of the block.
The landlord’s case notes show that on 2 February 2023 the fire alarm had been set off in the block due to the alleged perpetrator and his visitors smoking in communal areas. The landlord’s notes from this date state that homeless people were entering the building as the door was not secure.
On 3 February 2023 the resident asked the landlord for an update on the communal front door repair. The landlord replied on 14 February 2023 stating the door would be repaired that day.
Between 1 January 2023 and 30 February 2023 the resident submitted 244 noise nuisance sound recordings of the alleged perpetrator. These took place over 28 separate dates and recorded loud music and loud voices.
The landlord raised a repair for the communal front door on 20 February 2023. Duplicate repairs were raised on 22 February 2023 and 21 March 2023.
The landlord’s case notes show that the police contacted the landlord on 22 February 2022 and made it aware that a known drug dealer was staying with the alleged perpetrator.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 27 February 2023 stating that he was unhappy with its handling of his ASB case. The landlord raised this as a stage 1 complaint and wrote to him on 28 February 2023 to acknowledge the complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 9 March 2023. It said:
1. It would not consider events that took place more than 6 months before the complaint was made.
2. It could see that the resident had been calling and emailing the landlord, particularly between September 2022 and January 2023.
3. It was “facing an unprecedented workload” and apologised that the resident had to make contact “so many times…without things being resolved”.
4. It had made attempts to contact the resident on 15 February 2023 and 27 February 2023.
5. The housing team felt it had communicated with the resident and had “regularly [exchanged] messages”.
6. Due to General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) the landlord was unable to provide more information regarding the issue with the resident’s neighbour. It was however satisfied that the situation was being handled in line with the landlord’s policies and procedures.
7. If the resident continued to experience issues, he should raise these with his housing officer so the landlord could “continue building an evidence file”.
8. The housing officer would contact the resident within 10 working days to provide an update.
9. The complaint was partially upheld due to a “lack of progress and lack of communication, especially in the early stages” of the case.
10. It wished to offer the resident a “goodwill payment” of £50.
On 15 March 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint.
The resident contacted his MP on 20 March 2023 and stated that the entrance door to the block had been broken for 4 to 5 months. This made the block accessible to people who did not live in the building.
The resident contacted this Service on 20 March 2023. He said:
1. His landlord had failed to address ASB he had been reporting for almost a year.
2. The landlord had served notice on the alleged perpetrator. He was supposed to have left the property by 26 February 2023 but had not.
3. The issue was impacting his mental health and causing him to feel depressed.
4. It was also preventing him from having this 3-year-old daughter to stay with him.
On 21 March 2023 the landlord visited the resident at his home. The resident said it was “unbearable” living under the alleged perpetrator and he was being kept awake all night. The landlord’s case notes stated that while it was visiting the resident it was approached by 3 other neighbours to raise the same concerns.
The landlord was contacted by a visitor to the block on 23 March 2023 who reported witnessing drug dealing from the alleged perpetrator’s property. The visitor reported that they challenged the alleged perpetrator who then attacked them.
On 24 March 2023 the resident sent a message to the landlord saying that his mental health was at “rock bottom”. He said he was having to sleep on his sofa and was unable to have his daughter visit due to the ASB he was experiencing.
Also on 24 March 2023, the landlord visited the alleged perpetrator and told him he must move back to his principal address.
Between 24 February and 24 March 2023 the resident submitted 138 noise nuisance sound recordings from the alleged perpetrator to the landlord. These took place over 13 separate dates. The reports were of loud music and loud voices.
On 24 March 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was “fair and accurate”.
2. It appreciated that the response had not contained as much information as the resident expected. Due to GDPR the landlord was unable to provide a detailed account of all actions taken.
3. The landlord was required to work with residents to encourage them to change their behaviour and exhaust all alternatives before taking enforcement action. This could be a lengthy process.
4. The landlord appreciated the process could be frustrating and upsetting for residents.
5. All appropriate actions were being taken.
On 26 March 2023 the landlord raised a repair for the communal front door as the handle was “hanging off”. The repair log shows that the door was repaired on 27 March 2023.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 April 2023 and said he had been involved in a “scuffle” with someone. He said the individual had tried to enter his property believing it was the alleged perpetrator’s property.
On 12 April 2023 the landlord applied to court for an ASB injunction against one of the visitors who had been staying with the alleged perpetrator. The injunction was granted on 21 April 2023 and included an exclusion zone preventing him from entering the street where the block of flats was located.
The resident asked the landlord for an update on the ASB case on 14 April 2023 and 16 April 2023. On 17 April 2023 the landlord advised that it was still waiting for a court date.
Between 20 April 2023 and 24 April 2023 the resident texted the landlord 3 times asking for an update. The landlord replied on 24 April 2023 and said a hearing date had been set.
The resident texted the landlord on 27 April 2023 and 28 April 2023 asking for further updates. He said he had called the landlord’s call centre 8 times but no one had called him back.
On 1 May 2023 the resident text the landlord and said he had had a “mental breakdown due to stress and anxiety” caused by the ASB. He said that as a result he had been taken from his property to the hospital by the police and an ambulance.
On 9 May 2023 the resident texted the landlord and said the ASB was getting worse. He said the tenancy enforcement team was not updating him despite him begging them for help.
The resident texted the landlord again on 10 May 2023 and 12 May 2023 asking for an update. The landlord replied on 12 May 2023 and said it would get an update from the tenancy enforcement team and call him back.
The resident’s case was duly made to this Service on 15 May 2023.

Summary of events after the period of investigation

Following the landlord’s final complaint response and the resident’s referral to this Service he continued to report ASB from the alleged perpetrator and to submit NoiseApp recordings to the landlord.
On 31 May 2023 the landlord applied for an ASB injunction against the resident’s neighbour. This was granted on 18 July 2023. The terms of the injunction excluded the alleged perpetrator from the property. The landlord has stated that he did not return to the property after this date.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbour

It may help to firstly explain that the Ombudsman’s role is not to decide if the actions of the alleged perpetrator amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this in accordance with its policy, and in a manner that was reasonable overall.
The landlord’s ASB policy and procedure outline that it will complete an assessment of harm to determine the priority of a case and how quickly it will respond. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord completed a harm assessment. It is therefore unclear how the landlord determined the priority of the case. This was a failing.
The landlord’s policy states that it will carry out a RAM within between 24 hours and 5 days, depending on the harm assessment score. The policy goes on to say that the RAM will be regularly reviewed. This Service has not seen evidence that a RAM was completed at any stage within the ASB case.
Risk assessments are considered a fundamental tool in ASB case management and allow landlords to understand the risks posed to an ASB victim and respond appropriately. It is of concern that no formal assessment has been seen to have taken place.
Risk assessments should be used to identify any support requirements a resident has. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord offered any support to the resident. This is of particular concern as the resident expressed at several times during his communication with the landlord that his mental health was being impacted.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s statements that the issue has affected his health and wellbeing. However, this Service is unable to establish a causal link between reports of the health issues experienced by residents and the actions or inactions of landlords. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of the complaint. This Service will however consider any distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the ASB case.
The resident has made a large number of reports of ASB to the landlord in this case. He has reported being subject to noise nuisance from loud music and loud voices on an almost daily basis throughout the day and night. He has stated that he was being kept awake and was having to resort to sleeping on his sofa. This clearly caused the resident severe distress and inconvenience for a period of 10 months while the ASB was ongoing.
The resident reported serious concerns regarding criminal behaviours including drug use and drug dealing as well as being physically attacked on several occasions. Again, this clearly caused his fear and distress.
In March 2023 the resident disclosed to the landlord that, because of the protracted ASB, he had experienced a mental health breakdown and had been taken by emergency services to hospital. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s disclosure.
This Service would have expected that, as a minimum, the landlord would be empathetic to the resident’s situation and signpost him to mental health support services, or agencies such as Victim Support. That the landlord failed to sympathetically respond to this event was a serious failing. Paragraph 52 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman may find maladministration where a landlord has “treated the complainant personally in a heavy-handed, unsympathetic or inappropriate manner.”
The resident also reported on several occasions that, because of the ASB, he was unable to have his daughter stay overnight at the property. The Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone in the UK is entitled to. The Act requires all public authorities, and other bodies carrying out public functions, to respect and protect individuals’ rights. Article 8 protects an individual’s right to respect for their private and family life, home and correspondence. This includes the right for a family to live together.
Whether or not the Human Rights Act has been breached by the landlord is a matter for the courts, not the Ombudsman. The resident may wish to contact Citizen’s Advice if he wants advice on this matter.
However, this Service considers that the landlord should have considered whether there were Article 8 concerns when the resident advised it that his daughter was unable to stay with him. We have seen no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s family situation or how it was affected by the ASB. This was a further failing.
The landlord agreed an action plan with the resident on 12 September 2022. The action plan outlined that the resident would continue keeping a record of any incidents and the landlord would “take action where relevant”. This Service appreciates that it is important that the landlord manages the expectations of the reporting person. We do not however consider that such a vague action plan is helpful. An effective action plan should outline the specific steps that the landlord will take to investigate the case. This may include contacting other agencies such as the police, interviewing alleged perpetrators and witnesses, and reviewing CCTV or diary sheets.
An action plan should also include an agreement about how often the landlord will contact the complainant. We have not seen that a contact frequency was discussed or agreed in this case. The landlord’s own procedure outlines that it will update the complainant weekly as a minimum, it did not do so in this case and this was a failing.
Throughout this case the resident has had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates and responses. The landlord’s poor communication caused the resident clear frustration and added to the distress caused by the ASB.
The landlord’s case management system shows that an ASB case was not logged by the landlord until 28 October 2022. This was more than 3 months after the resident reported his concerns. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of the landlord’s housing management service, which assists the landlord in fulfilling its ASB management obligations. Accurate and timely record keeping ensures that the landlord has a good understanding of the case and enable it to make assessments about appropriate and proportionate action.
It is clear from the evidence provided by the landlord that it was taking action in this case. The landlord visited the alleged perpetrator on at least 9 occasions, sometimes in the company of police officers. It wrote to the alleged perpetrator on many occasions warning him about his behaviour and that enforcement action would be taken if he continued.
This Service has also seen evidence that the landlord liaised with other agencies regarding the alleged perpetrator. This demonstrated that it followed good practice in taking a multi-agency approach and clearly had a good relationship with local services which was positive.
In December 2022 the landlord advised the resident that it was limited in the information it could provide in relation to the alleged perpetrator due to GDPR. This Service acknowledges that the landlord had a duty to consider data protection concerns when updating the resident. However, we consider that the landlord should have made this clear to the resident from the start of the ASB case to manage his expectations. The resident was therefore left with the impression that the landlord was not taking any action and that his concerns were being ignored. That the landlord did not explain the GDPR restrictions until 5 months into the investigation was a failing.
Between 12 October 2022 and 20 March 2022 the resident reported to the landlord on at least 5 occasions that the front entry door was insecure and this was allowing non-residents to access the block.
The landlord has acknowledged that there was an error in the way the front door repair was raised. As a result the order bounced back and forth between the landlord and its contractor and was not repaired until 27 March 2023.
The evidence demonstrates that the landlord missed several opportunities to identify the issue with the repair order when the resident chased for updates. Its failure to do so resulted in delays of 5 months in completing the repair. The resident was paying service charges of £208.99 per year for “scheme safety and security” and £74.26 per year for maintenance of the door entry system. This Service has therefore awarded compensation of £118 for the 5 months the door was insecure.
This Service appreciates that ASB investigations can be complex and take a long time to resolve. We also accept that a landlord can only act where it is proportionate to do so and that it must demonstrate that less severe action could not bring about a resolution before starting legal proceedings.
The landlord served a notice to quit on the alleged perpetrator on 23 January 2023. This was 11 weeks after he refused to move back to his principal home. The resident then failed to leave the property by the expiry date on the notice but the landlord did not apply to court for possession. It is unclear why the landlord did not consider taking possession action at that time.
The landlord did apply to court in April 2023 for an ASB injunction against the alleged perpetrator’s visitor. It then applied for a further injunction against the alleged perpetrator in May 2023. Considering the seriousness of the behaviours reported by the resident, and the evidence that was available to the landlord at the time, this Service considers that this action should have been considered sooner.
This Service considers that the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property was severely reduced due to the landlord’s failure to address the ASB he experienced. He was unable to sleep or have his daughter to stay with him and was clearly extremely distressed by the experience. We therefore order the landlord to pay the resident 50% of the weekly rental amount of £96.41 for the loss of enjoyment of the property for 10 months. This amounts to £2,087.
Overall, while the landlord did take action to address the ASB, more decisive action could reasonably have been taken sooner. The landlord failed to complete a harm assessment or risk assessment and failed to log the ASB case on its case management system promptly. The resident’s distress and frustration were exacerbated by the landlord’s failure to communicate with him effectively. He clearly stated on several occasions the impact that the ASB was having on him but the landlord failed to acknowledge this sufficiently or refer the resident for support. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the ASB.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time states that a complaint is defined as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation”.
While the landlord did not log a formal complaint until 27 February 2023, this Service considers that it should have done so earlier. On 19 October 2022 the resident said he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the case. On 2 December 2022 he stated that he was “frustrated” as he felt the landlord was not doing anything to resolve the situation. He said he wanted to speak to a manager about the issue. The landlord should reasonably have logged a formal complaint at this time as the resident had clearly expressed dissatisfaction with its actions. That it did not do so delayed the resident’s access to this Service.
The landlord said to the resident in its stage 1 complaint response that it would only consider events that took place within 6 months of the formal complaint. This is not in line with the landlord’s policy which states that it will not consider events that took place more than 12 months prior to the formal complaint. It is unclear why the landlord misinformed the resident. However, that it did, was a failing in the circumstances.
Within its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged a lack of progress and communication in the early stages of the ASB case. It apologised for this and offered £50 compensation. This Service does not consider this to be reasonable or proportionate compensation considering the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble experienced by the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response upheld the outcome of the stage 1 complaint. This Service considers that the stage 2 complaint response was a missed opportunity for the landlord to identify the failures in the handling of the ASB case and to offer reasonable and proportionate compensation.
Overall, the landlord delayed in logging a formal complaint in relation to the resident’s clear dissatisfaction to its ASB case handling. It provided incorrect policy information to the resident and failed to acknowledge or offer adequate compensation for the severe distress, inconvenience, time and trouble experienced by the resident. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbour.
2. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

While the landlord did take action to address the ASB, more decisive action could reasonably have been taken at an earlier opportunity. The landlord failed to complete harm and risk assessments and failed to log the case on its ASB case management system promptly. The resident’s distress and frustration were exacerbated by the landlord’s failure to communicate with him effectively. He clearly stated on several occasions the impact that the ASB was having on him but the landlord failed to acknowledge this sufficiently or refer the resident for support.
The landlord delayed in logging a formal complaint in relation to the resident’s clear dissatisfaction to its ASB case handling. It provided incorrect policy information to the resident and failed to acknowledge or offer adequate compensation for the severe distress, inconvenience, time and trouble experienced by the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report a senior officer of the landlord at director level or above to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology should:
1. Be personal and specific to the resident and case.
2. Express empathy.
3. Acknowledge the failures in the case and the impact on the resident.
4. Take responsibility for the problems and express regret.
5. Explain what is being done to put things right and prevent the issue happening again.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £2,505 which comprises:
1. £118 for the period the door entry system was not working.
2. £2,087 for distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble in relation to the landlord’s ASB handling.
3. £300 for time and trouble in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its ASB handling. The review must be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation and should include as a minimum (but is not limited to) how the landlord will ensure:
1. All reports of ASB are logged appropriately.
2. Risk assessments are completed and regularly updated in all cases.
3. It considers what support can be provided to the complainant by the landlord and/or other services.
4. It completes sufficiently detailed action plans in agreement with the complainant to ensure that expectations are appropriately managed.
5. Information sharing limitations are explained to complainants early in the process to manage expectations.
6. Complainants are kept regularly updated and their contacts returned in a timely manner.

The landlord must provide a copy of the report to this Service and its Board within 12 weeks of the date of this report.