Hyde Housing Association Limited (202210353)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210353

Hyde Housing Association Limited

7 November 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 is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour by her neighbour.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1 bedroom flat within a converted house that is managed by the landlord. The converted house is split into 3 flats and the neighbour lives within one of these flats. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
In July 2022 the Ombudsman determined the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by the neighbour (under reference 201909932). That investigation considered the landlord’s stage 2 response from 30 June 2021 and explained that new events after the date of that stage 2 response did not form part of that investigation. On 17 November 2022 this Service considered a review request and decided the determination from July 2022 was the final position on those issues.
Whilst the historical events provide background to the current investigation, this report focuses on events after the landlord’s stage 2 response from 30 June 2021. This report has focused on the ASB complaint raised by the resident which formed part of the landlord’s final response from 28 February 2023.
It is important to explain that matters that formed part of the Ombudsman determination in July and November 2022 will not be considered again here. It is also important to explain that although it seems new issues have come to light, any new events after 28 February 2023 will also not be considered within this report as this report will focus on the landlord’s response from 30 June 2021.

Policy framework

The landlord’s ASB policy says the term antisocial behaviour covers a wide range of unacceptable activities that have a negative effect on the quality of community life and the lives of people within those communities. It explained that this can include, amongst other things, conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress, conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance; or conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The landlord’s ASB policy explains its approach to ASB and that, except in very serious cases, it aims to provide early intervention to stop cases escalating. It explains that it considers more significant action such as legal action and eviction if there is sufficient evidence. It says this is as a last resort and where other interventions have failed.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaint policy. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of its formal acknowledgement. For its stage 2 response it says it will take 20 working days to respond following receipt of request.
The landlord’s complaint’s policy explains that its complaint response will include a review of what has happened, its decision about the complaint and details of next steps.

Summary of events

Following the landlord’s stage 2 response from 30 June 2021, the evidence shows that it made an ASB referral to its legal department on 18 August 2021 where it sought to evict the neighbour and sought an injunction. Within this document the landlord referred to historical events ranging from December 2015 to 2 June 2021.
On 23 September 2021 victim support told the landlord that the resident was afraid in her home due to the ongoing issues with the neighbour. It said the resident found the situation had a big impact on her everyday life and her mental health and well-being. It asked the landlord to assist the resident with matters.
The police also wrote a letter on 26 October 2021 in support of the resident moving away from the property.
It is understood that on 28 October 2021 the resident told the landlord that she believed the neighbour was following her in his work vehicle. She also told it that the neighbour continued to make threats which she could hear through the walls of the property.
The landlord’s internal notes from 10 November 2021 say its legal department was still considering a notice to seek possession (NOSP). On 11 February 2022 the landlord’s legal team authorised legal action against the neighbour. Following this on 14 February 2022 the landlord issued the NOSP against the neighbour. This referred to incidents from 1 December 2015 to 28 October 2021.
The landlord provided the resident with an update on 15 February 2022. It said:
1. It apologised that it did not follow through with a NOSP after the incident in December 2020.
2. It explained the NOSP was the first step in legal action to take back possession of the property. It said it must wait 4 weeks before it could make a court application for possession. It explained it would need to assess whether to do this and that decision would be based on whether the ASB was continuing.
3. It asked the resident to provide details of recent or ongoing incidents to assist it, it said this would help it to decide whether to progress with a possession claim. However it explained there was no guarantee that the neighbour would be evicted and that it was a long process. It asked to speak to the resident to explain the process.
4. It explained the reasons for its delays due to staff changes, increased work, new staff, lack of supervision of staff and the impact of COVID- 19.
5. It said it was working with other managers to ensure it learnt from this case. It explained that managers within its ASB team would work together to review its processes around staff changes and the management of complex/high profile cases to ensure the same mistakes weren’t made again.
6. It accepted the resident had received email updates with incorrect and misleading information. It referred to emails it sent on 6 October 2021 and 2 November 2021 where it incorrectly implied a NOSP had been served. It apologised for its errors.
On 15 March 2022 the resident’s MP contacted the landlord on her behalf. Here the MP said:
1. The resident felt there was little progress and no resolution to the situation that “made her life unbearable for many years”.
2. The resident felt the demand for further evidence continued to put her in harm’s way.
3. The resident was reluctant to speak to the landlord due to its lack of progress.
4. The resident had expressed that she wanted the landlord to arrange an urgent move so she could have a quality of life. The MP asked whether the landlord could commit to moving the resident urgently.
The police wrote to the landlord on 4 April 2022 and described the events as persistent ASB by the neighbour. The police said that over the past 6 months it had been called to the address more than 50 times which resulted in the reporting of 4 crimes ranging from harassment, common assault and a public order offence. The police said the resident was reported as a victim of these incidents and that they had caused the resident anxiety. The police added that if the resident remained at the property for longer they feared that the resident’s anxiety was at risk of becoming worse. The police told the landlord that the way to break the cycle was to move the resident to a different area.
On 27 April 2022 the landlord told the resident’s MP that it had considered the resident’s priority move application but as the threshold had not been met the application was not accepted by its panel.
On 8 June 2022, the landlord told the resident’s MP that there had been no progress with the NOSP or injunction. It said this was because it had not received updated reports from the resident to allow it to progress the matters further. The landlord asked the resident to update it with any recent or ongoing incidents so that it could decide what further action might be required. The landlord chased for a response to this on 11 July 2022.
On 13 July 2022 the Ombudsman shared its determination mentioned previously within this report. This determination, amongst other things, included orders for the landlord to take further steps to:
1. Contact the resident to agree an action plan for how it would acknowledge, respond to and progress her reports of ASB going forward that was in line with its ASB policy and its guidance on dealing with high profile/complex ASB cases. The landlord was to effectively manage expectations in doing so.
2. Assess the understanding of all relevant staff regarding the requirements of its ASB policy and its guidance on dealing with high profile/complex ASB cases. Where any training needs were identified the landlord was to prepare a timetable for carrying out any necessary training. The landlord was to provide this Service with a summary of its assessment and confirmation of any further action taken.
On 18 July 2022 the resident’s MP told the landlord that the issues were still ongoing with the neighbour. The MP said that the resident had asked for an extension to the deadline to provide further information and said that despite the landlord’s letter from February 2022 the resident had received no direct contact from it.
On 25 July 2022 the landlord emailed the resident about its proposed action plan for how it would acknowledge, respond to and progress her reports of ASB going forward. It said:
1. In prior contact it had already agreed that the resident would provide details of recent or ongoing ASB incidents for it to review by 1 August 2022. It explained that this would allow it to determine the most appropriate way to progress the case including determining what, if any, further action was required following the NOSP served on the neighbour in February 2022. It explained once it had this information from the resident it would review and provide its response on next steps by 12 August 2022.
2. It would review the resident’s case on a monthly basis. It said it would set out the future case review date in advance and ask the resident to provide details of ongoing incidents prior to the date.
3. Following the review it would confirm the outcome via email within 5 working days. It said this communication would confirm the next steps or actions required in the case, the timescales for these actions to be completed and the next case review date.
4. When it received contact about reports it would acknowledge and respond within its agreed timescales. It said these were 2 days for phone calls and 10 working days for emails/letters.
5. It acknowledged the resident’s preferred contact method was email but asked for a telephone conversation to discuss and agree its action plan. It offered to call the resident on 28 July 2022 at 11am. It told the resident to let it know if the date or time was not suitable.
On 1 August 2022 the landlord sent the resident an email following an unsuccessful call attempt. It explained its contact was to discuss its action plan. On the same day, the resident shared diary sheets with the landlord. The diary sheets reported events from 3 January 2020 to 1 August 2022. The incidents after 30 June 2021 involved noise disturbances, reports of ASB and incidents reported to the police on 28 October 2021 and 3 November 2021.
The landlord acknowledged the diary sheets the following day and said it would review and contact the resident by 12 August 2022.
On 3 August 2022 the landlord’s internal email summarised the actions taken following this Service’s investigation. It said:
1. It contacted the resident on 25 July 2022 setting out the proposed action plan for how it would acknowledge, respond to and progress reports of ASB going forward. It said the resident had not responded to the contacts it made following this but had provided further incident details for it to review which formed part of its action plan. It said it assumed this was her acceptance and that it would continue to progress as per its plan.
2. Following a review it confirmed all staff had a good understanding of the ASB policy and procedure.
3. It had shared guidance on managing high profile cases on 20 July 2022. It said it had confirmed with all staff that they had read and understood the guidance so they could implement it on their own with no additional training or guidance. It said it recorded this within a skills matrix.
4. It had introduced a reporting aspect to these types of cases.
On 15 August 2022 the resident raised her complaint and referred to contact from the landlord on 11 August 2022. She said:
1. The landlord did not inform her or her MP that it was only going to focus on ASB incidents after 21 February 2022. She said it did this despite her providing it with diary sheets for several years showing the incidents had been non-stop for several years.
2. She said she had heard that the landlord had issued NOSP numerous times since 2016. But despite what it had said a NOSP had not actually been served.
3. That despite the neighbour being charged with criminal damage and harassment which should have resulted in an automatic eviction he still remained at the building.
4. The landlord had continued to leave her at risk and to endure the situation for years.
5. The landlord’s response was not acceptable and it had not been proactive. She asked for her case to be moved to an expert in ASB.
On 16 August 2022 this Service wrote to the resident about her complaint from 15 August 2022. The resident expressed further dissatisfaction on 17 August 2022 with the landlord’s handling of her matter and asked it to revert back to including her MP into future communication and to contact her by email only.
On 24 August 2022 victim support services wrote to the landlord about a need for an urgent update or plan for the resident’s safeguarding.
Also on 24 August 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint about its handling of her ASB case. It provided its response confirming that:
1. It was satisfied the current management of her case was in line with its ASB policy and procedure.
2. It accepted there had been service failure in the past. But said these issues had been addressed separately.
3. It said that its comment about focusing on ASB incidents that occurred after the service of the NOSP was in relation to its review of diary records as it should already have been aware of anything that occurred prior to the NOSP. It explained its main focus was in reviewing progress on a case to consider the new incidents that had occurred in conjunction with what it knew had already happened so it could decide the best course of action.
4. Whilst it acknowledged the resident’s unhappiness it found no further service failures in the handling of the case. It told the resident that the member of staff would continue to manage the case with support from a team leader.
On 30 August 2022 the landlord told the resident that it required additional and independent evidence to support the ongoing allegations before it could progress with legal action. It offered to install a noise monitor in response to the noise reports. It explained that it was important it received further diary sheets to help with evidence gathering. It said if it did not receive any further diary sheets or reports it would be unable to progress the investigation and the case would be closed.
On 27 September 2022 the landlord chased for a response from the resident about the installation of a noise machine to assist it with gathering evidence alongside the submission of diary sheets. It said the police had told it about further reports of the neighbour stalking and following the resident in his vehicle. It provided the resident with the details of the National Stalking Helpline and told her it would help to discuss the recent incidents and reports made to the police over a telephone conversation. It said that if the resident was unable to respond it would be unable to move the case forward.
On 10 October 2022 the resident sent the landlord further diary sheets and told it that she was unhappy about continually being asked to submit diary sheets. The diary sheets recorded incidents from 2 August 2022 to 10 October 2022. The landlord acknowledged the diary sheets on 17 October 2022 and said it was following up with the police about some of the reports made. It said it hoped to gain a better understanding of what had happened, what action the police were taking and what action was required of it. It added that the resident had made reports of noise nuisance and said it wanted to gather further evidence with the installation of a noise machine.
On 31 October 2022 the landlord told the resident that the police had been unable to progress the case due to a lack of evidence. It asked again if she wanted a noise machine installed. The landlord also followed up with the police and on 12 November 2022 the police confirmed that the case was closed due to insufficient evidence.
On 15 November 2022 the resident told the landlord that she wanted 2 noise machines installed so she could move them into different rooms. The landlord responded on 22 November 2022 to say it could only install 1 machine that needed to stay in one place within the property. It is noted that the landlord’s internal message confirms the resident agreed to a noise machine being installed but said it was awaiting a date for installation from her at that time.
On 29 November 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident in response to this Service’s previous determination. It explained the actions it had taken following that report and said it had:
1. Conducted an internal review of the complaint to ensure it learnt from the resident’s experience.
2. Reached out to agree an action plan and it was working with the resident to follow the steps listed.
3. Told the resident that it needed further evidence of ongoing ASB and offered to install a noise monitor in her property. It explained it was not in a position to issue 2 machines to the resident and had asked the resident to confirm if she was happy with its approach.
4. It said once it received the resident’s response in relation to installing a noise monitor it would follow-up with an agreed timeframe for installation.
5. Liaised with the police about the further reports made and the actions they were pursuing.
6. Asked the resident to write to it to confirm it had addressed all her concerns.
On 2 December 2022 this Service wrote to the landlord about the resident’s complaint reminding it of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It asked for it to provide a formal written response to the complaint by 16 December 2022.
On 2 December 2022 the landlord confirmed it would investigate and respond to the complaint. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 8 December 2022. Within its letter it said it would speak to the staff involved to help establish what was needed to put things right. It said it would aim to respond to the resident by 16 December 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 December 2022. It said:
1. It acknowledged that it had been a long-drawn-out process for the resident and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused.
2. It accepted it failure in the handling of the ASB complaints and upheld the resident’s complaint. It offered the resident £100 compensation which was to recognise its delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaint and the poor complaint handling experience.
3. Its ASB team have reviewed and confirmed they have a good understanding of the ASB policy and procedure. It added that it had also shared guidance on how to manage such cases.
4. It had reviewed its record keeping practices during the ASB process and complaint handling following this Service’s determination on the resident’s previous case.
5. It apologised for the overall management of the resident’s ASB case and complaint and that she was left with no option but to come to this Service before her poor experiences could be truly appreciated.
On 14 December 2022 the resident listed the names of staff who she wanted to complain about. On 21 December 2022 the resident told the landlord that she was unable to provide dates for the installation of the noise machine and said that the ASB case must not be closed. She said she would contact it about installation dates when she was able to.
On 23 February 2023 the resident told this Service that she wished to continue with her ASB complaint and said that the £100 offered by the landlord was not sufficient. This Service then asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint
On 28 February 2023 the landlord provided its final response and said its position remained the same as that from its response dated 13 December 2022. The resident referred the matter to this Service.
On 30 March 2023 the landlord told the resident that following its meeting with the police in November 2022, the police had said it had closed its case about the resident being stalked by the neighbour due to a lack of evidence. It explained it worked in collaboration with the police and that it was unable to take further action if the police case had been closed. It asked the resident to confirm dates she wanted it to install the noise monitor.
On 9 May 2023 the landlord chased for a response from the resident and said it would close the ASB case if it did not hear from her within 7 days. On 16 May 2023 it told the resident that following unsuccessful attempts to contact her, as it did not have any details about further incidents it hoped the situation had resolved and the ASB case had been closed.
The resident told the landlord on 24 May 2023 that she did not want it to close the ASB case, she said the ongoing ASB meant she was unable to respond sooner and told it of escalated criminal matters. In its response the landlord said it would not reopen the ASB case but instead would provide her with an update within 2 weeks.
On 1 June 2023 the landlord told the police that it had closed the ASB case due to a lack of response from the resident and not having further evidence of ongoing ASB. In its response the police said it was “seeing these ongoing incidents as a pattern of behaviour which constitute as stalking. If you have closed the ASB case can I kindly ask you to reopen this.” The police added that the resident was still experiencing harassment and intimidation.

Assessment and findings

It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. However, it is important to explain that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether an incident amounts to ASB or whether ASB had occurred. It is also not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether there had been a breach of a tenancy agreement in the same way a court would. Instead it is the role of this Service to consider the actions taken by a landlord when reports of alleged ASB have been made to it and to decide whether those action where appropriate or reasonable in the circumstances.

Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour by her neighbour

The Ombudsman’s determination from July 2022 considered reports of ASB in April 2021 where the resident told it that her neighbour had made threats to “rape and kill her”. Whilst the seriousness of these reports were considered in the Ombudsman’s report from July 2022 and will not be assessed here, it is important to reference for context.
The available evidence shows that following the landlord’s stage 2 response from 30 June 2021 the resident reported a further incident on 28 October 2021. Here she told the landlord how she felt the neighbour was following her and how she could hear him making threats through the walls of the property. It is understood that the resident reported this incident to the police and that the landlord appropriately referred to it within the NOSP issued in February 2022.
However the landlord has not provided evidence to show it followed the steps available to it as per its ASB policy after the report of the incident in October 2021. It has not provided evidence to show it followed up with the resident to determine whether it needed to take any further action, especially considering the serious nature of the reports made to it around that time. Whilst it is accepted the police were involved, there is no evidence to show the landlord provided the resident with any support. The landlord’s lack of action here was not appropriate.
Whilst the landlord issued a NOSP in February 2022 and accepted its delay in issuing this, it failed to keep the resident updated with this or its planned approach. Instead it took 4 months to tell the resident’s MP that it was unable to progress further with legal action due to lack of updates about recent or ongoing incidents. It said this despite the police telling it in April 2022 that the police had been contacted more than 50 times in the last 6 months and that the police found 4 crimes reported to it where the resident was reported as a victim.
The landlord’s decision to take legal action and issue a NOSP in February 2022 demonstrates that other interventions available to it had failed and that as per its ASB policy this was a serious case. It is the landlord’s decision to decide whether it has sufficient evidence to continue with legal action and adopt its own risk based approach when deciding this. However when it decided not to continue with legal action it failed to offer the resident alternative options or support. It did this at a time when the issues had been repeated over several years and had been deemed serious. The landlord’s failure to offer alternatives or to consider a way to bring matters to a conclusion here was not appropriate.
The resident provided the landlord with diary sheets on 1 August 2022 which referred to incidents from 3 January 2020 to 1 August 2022. Following this she raised a complaint on 15 August 2022. Here she referred to the landlord’s email from 11 August 2022 and said she was unhappy that the landlord did not tell her that it would focus on ASB incidents after 21 February 2022.
In its response from 24 August 2022 the landlord explained that its comments about focusing on ASB incidents that occurred after 21 February 2022, when the NOSP was issued, was in relation to its review of the resident’s diary sheets. It said this was because it should already have known what had occurred prior to the NOSP.
Despite requests from this Service for a copy of the email from 11 August 2022 the landlord has been unable to provide this. However, from the contents of its response from 24 August 2022, it is accepted that the landlord did tell the resident about it wanting to know about ASB incidents post the NOSP date. It is clear that this came as a surprise to the resident. However the landlord acted reasonably in promptly explaining its decided approach to the resident and the issued NOSP referred to the incidents that were reported to it prior to 21 February 2022.
The resident provided further diary sheets on 10 October 2022 and told the landlord that she was unhappy about continually being asked to submit diary sheets. Here the diary sheets showed a number of incidents relating to noise disturbances, the smell of drugs and the resident repeated how she felt she was being stalked by the neighbour. The landlord acknowledged the diary sheets on 17 October 2022 and appropriately told the resident that it would follow up with the police. It told the resident that the police were unable to progress the case due to a lack of evidence and said it would continue to follow up with them. The landlord appropriately offered to instal noise monitors in the property at that time.
Overall, the landlord failed to act swiftly or in line with its ASB policy when the resident raised further reports of ASB in October 2021. Whilst it referred to the incident within the NOSP it has not shown that it acted swiftly to consider the avenues available to it as per its ASB policy in or around October 2021.
Whilst the landlord issued a NOSP in February 2022, it later decided to not continue with legal action due to a lack of evidence. Here, it failed to consider alternative ways to support the resident and has not provided evidence to show it conducted a risk assessment when deciding its approach. Instead it continued to ask the resident to provide further evidence of incidents despite what she had already provided it with over several years. This placed the burden of providing evidence solely on the resident with no clear plan of action from the landlord.
The landlord’s continued failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB given the serious historical reports was not appropriate and amounts to maladministration.
Within its stage 1 response from 13 December 2022 the landlord apologised for its handling of the resident’s ASB issues and upheld the resident’s complaint. It offered the resident £100 in compensation and said £50 of this was to acknowledge the resident’s ASB complaint. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its service fell short, it did not explain where its service fell short or provide an explanation of its findings. This makes it difficult to decide if the compensation offered by it was appropriate and if it had learnt from its failings at that time. It is acknowledged that since this Service’s determination in July 2022 the landlord has done some work to demonstrate its learning and it is also acknowledged that the timeline of this complaint and that work may have crossed over. This has been reflected in the order made.
However, when considering the landlord’s repeated failings here, the longstanding issue and no meaningful plan of action to bring matters to an end, a greater compensation amount would be more proportionate to acknowledge the upset, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. As such a further order of compensation has been made for the above mentioned failings and consideration has been given to previous awards made by the landlord.

Complaint handling

The resident raised her complaint on 15 August 2022 and said she wished to make an official complaint. The landlord responded to the complaint on 24 August 2022 and said the case was being progressed in line with its policy and procedure and that it found no service failure.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 2 December 2022 asking it to provide a formal response by 16 December 2022. The landlord responded on 13 December 2022 and provided its formal stage 1 response. It took the landlord 4 months to issue its formal stage 1 response. This was not appropriate.
Here the landlord upheld the resident’s ASB complaint. However it did not respond in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the code) applicable at that time, as it did not address the points raised in the complaint or provide reasons for its decision. Instead it simply accepted a failure in the handling of the resident’s ASB complaint.
The landlord missed a further opportunity to explain its decision within its final response from 28 February 2023. Here it simply referred the resident back to its stage 1 response. It is acknowledged that at times it can be reasonable to refer a resident to a stage 1 response, however it is not appropriate to do so when that response does not provide reasons for a landlord’s decision.
The landlord’s complaint response shows it explained the training and learning that it had implemented and it appropriately apologised. However, its failure to explain its decision to uphold the complaint and explain what actually went wrong show it lacked insight into its failings when handling the resident’s reports of ASB. This was not appropriate.
The landlord’s failings here amount to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord has not provided evidence to show it followed up on the incident reported to it in October 2021 or that it provided the resident with support at that time. Whilst it issued a NOSP it took 4 months to tell the resident that it was unable to progress further with legal action due to a lack of updates. It failed to offer the resident alternative options or support despite the further reports made to it. Instead it placed the burden on the resident to continue to log diary sheets despite her doing so over several years.
The landlord’s complaint handling fell short. It failed to initially respond in line with its formal complaint process and it took this Service’s intervention for it to issue a formal response. This meant it took 4 months to issue a formal stage 1 response. When it did eventually respond it failed to explain the reasons for its decision, demonstrating a lack of insight into its failings.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total compensation of £500 within four weeks of the date of this report. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. This is comprised of:
1. £300 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the highlighted failings in its handling of reports of ASB.
2. £100 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
3. £100 it previously offered in its final response from 23 February 2023. If this has not been already paid to the resident.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to conduct a senior management review of this case within 6 weeks of the date of this report. It should provide a copy of its review to this Service and a summary to the resident. Its review should focus on:
1. What went wrong and the changes/improvements it will make to ensure its procedures and policy’s for handling ASB are working effectively.
2. How it seeks to support the resident in light of its decision not to continue with legal action. This should include it completing a risk assessment of the case and deciding an appropriate way forward with clear dates and timeframes.