Islington Council (202116228)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116228

Islington Council

31 July 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 (ASB) reported up to 19 March 2021;
2. handling of the resident’s reports of ASB reported after 19 March 2021;
3. response to the resident’s concerns that the landlord’s staff racially discriminating against her;
4. complaint handling.
The reports also examines the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 42 (g) and 42 (m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The landlord’s:
1. handling of the resident’s reports of ASB reported up to 19 March 2021;
2. response to the resident’s concerns that the landlord’s staff racially discriminating against her.
Paragraph 42 (m) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.
The Ombudsman has previously investigated the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB up to 19 March 2021 in a report dated 23 June 2021. Therefore this complaint is outside the jurisdiction of this Service in line with paragraph 42 (m) of the Scheme.
Paragraph 42 (g) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. It follows that the resident’s complaint falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident has stated that she experienced discrimination from the landlord based on her race. It is recognised that the resident was distressed by what she perceived to be discriminatory treatment. Whether or not the Equalities Act (2010) has been breached by the landlord is a matter that would appropriately be decided by a court, not the Ombudsman. Therefore, this complaint is outside the jurisdiction of this Service. The resident should seek independent legal advice if she is considering legal action.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and has lived in the two-bedroom basement flat since 2006.
This Service has seen evidence that the resident has been reporting issues of noise nuisance to the landlord since 2018. Events from March 2020 to March 2021 were considered in a previous Ombudsman investigation. As explained above, this investigation will focus on events after March 2021.

Landlord policies and procedures

The landlord’s ASB procedure states that “[in] all cases of ASB, Partners will consider the support needs of the complainants as well as the alleged perpetrators alongside the need for intervention”. The procedure refers to the ‘Housing and Adult Social Services protocol’ and states that where the landlord suspects there is a vulnerability it should record a ‘vulnerability flag’ on its data management system. It should then contact adult social services to find out if they are known to social services.
The ASB procedure defines a hate crime as “any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic”. The landlord states that it will refer such cases to the police.
The landlord’s website states that tenants do not need permission from the landlord to install closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras unless they are fitted to the building using screws or nails or has to be electrically wired in. It also states that tenants should be mindful of the privacy of others and that where the camera covers areas outside the tenant’s property, for example public footpaths or neighbour’s gardens, they must adhere to General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage one complaints within 21 calendar days, and stage two complaints within 28 calendar days.
The complaint policy states that the landlord will not investigate:
1. complaints that are more than 12 months old
2. a complaint that has already been investigated by itself or the Ombudsman
The landlord states within its complaints policy that “It should be noted that the Housing Ombudsman insists that all complaints are made in writing”. This is not the case – the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code described a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made”.

Summary of events

On 26 April 2021 the resident reported that her neighbour has emptied water from her children’s paddling pool into the resident’s garden.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 May 2021 to report that her neighbour was not maintaining their part of the communal front garden. The resident stated that due to her deteriorating vision and other health issues she was unable to maintain the garden as she previously had. She attached a photograph of a paved area which shows weeds growing through cracks. The landlord responded to the resident the same day asking the resident to clarify what ASB she is reporting as her photographs did not demonstrate ASB. The landlord asked for the resident to provide her telephone number to discuss her report further. This Service has not seen evidence that the resident provided her contact details or responded to this email.
On 15 August 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and attached a formal complaint letter. The letter stated that the resident felt she was being treated unequally on the basis of her race as she was of black heritage and all of her neighbours were white. The resident stated:
1. She had experienced ASB from her neighbour for four years and had reported the issues to her housing officer.
2. The resident had reported that her neighbour had thrown a “sticky liquid substance” from their window, causing a mess of the front door area and landing on the resident. The landlord had advised the resident that this did not constitute a breach of tenancy.
3. The resident had also reported that her neighbour had thrown dirty water from a paddling pool into her garden. She said she had been advised by the landlord that water spillage was not something it could take action against.
4. The housing officer had dismissed her concerns that her privacy was being invaded by her neighbour who had been taking videos and photos into her windows and looking over her fence into the resident’s garden.
5. The landlord had not taken any enforcement action against her neighbour despite the ASB and “harassment being clearly racially motivated”. The housing officer had advised that they had spoken to the neighbour but that there was no clear evidence to support further action being taken against them.
6. The resident had received a number of warnings for allegations made by her neighbour which showed that the housing officer considered the resident to be the perpetrator despite having no supporting evidence.
7. The landlord’s failure to take action to prevent the resident’s neighbour from harassing her on the basis of her protected characteristics constituted harassment by the landlord.
8. The resident was concerned that the landlord had breached GDPR by providing her with her neighbour’s email address, telephone number and details of their allegations within its response to the resident’s Subject Access Request.
9. The resident advised she was vulnerable and that her mental health had been impacted by her neighbour’s ASB and the landlord’s lack of action.
On 17 August 2021 the landlord replied to the resident’s email advising that “this matter was already addressed by the [landlord] on 19 March 2021 (copy of response attached), and your complaint has completed the council’s complaints process. If you remain dissatisfied with the council’s response, you now have the option to complain directly to the Housing Ombudsman”.
On 13 October 2021 the resident contacted the landlord asking why she had not received a response to her complaint of 15 August 2021.
On 1 November 2021 the resident’s case was referred to this Service by her local Member of Parliament.
On 30 November the resident provided the landlord with recordings made on the Noise App – a mobile phone application designed to record noise nuisance.
The landlord emailed the resident on 14 December 2021 and stated that:
1. The resident had asked whether a door closer could be fitted in her neighbour’s property – this had been discussed with her neighbour but they declined the offer of the landlord installing the door closer at no cost to them. The landlord stated that there had been no tenancy breach so it could not take any further action or compel the neighbour to have a door closer fitted.
2. The landlord’s ASB team had assessed recordings made by the resident on the Noise App but that this did not evidence any “noise during unsocial hours (11pm-7am)”. The noise the resident reported was “day to day living noise” and therefore the landlord could not take action against her neighbour.
3. It is not unreasonable that children make noise when they play in their home within the hours of 7am and 11pm.
4. The ASB officer had provided the resident with diary sheets to assist with its investigation on 10 November 2021. It had reminded the resident on 30 November 2021 of the importance of completing incident diaries.
The resident replied to the landlord on 17 December 2021 and asked whether, as her neighbour had refused the landlord’s offer to install a door closer, the landlord had warned the neighbour that it would take action against them if they continued to slam their door.
On 24 December 2021 the landlord emailed the resident and again advised that it could not force her neighbour to have a door closer installed. It also advised that the noise recordings made by the resident did not constitute ASB as it was not excessive and was during the daytime.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 January 2022 stating that the slamming of her neighbour’s front door was causing a picture of her late mother to fall off the wall. She asked whether she was expected to live with the ASB from her neighbour indefinitely.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 12 January 2022 and said that due to the landlord’s inaction she had resorted to banging on her ceiling with a broomstick to make the noise stop. She said that this had caused her neighbour to increase their ASB and she had therefore increased her banging. She stated that her fixtures, fittings and windows were being caused to shake due to the children’s running, stomping and jumping between 4pm and 8pm. The resident repeated these concerns in an email dated 30 January 2022.
The landlord responded to the resident on 14 February 2022. It stated that the evidence submitted by the resident “did not demonstrate excessive noise and would therefore not be enough for [it] to take any form of action at this time”. The landlord asked if anyone had witnessed the noise and repeated its request that the resident complete incident diaries. The resident responded to the landlord on the same day and stated that the recordings had not captured the ASB as the Noise App only allowed recordings of 30 seconds.
On 16 February 2022 the resident asked the landlord to speak to her neighbour about the “endless banging, stomping, jumping from their kids”. She also asked that the landlord consider soundproofing the properties.
The landlord responded to the resident on 2 March 2022 advising that a letter would be sent to the resident’s neighbour asking them “to be mindful of their living noise”. It repeated its request that the resident start to keep incident diaries. The resident replied on the same day advising that her neighbour had deliberately slammed their front door at 4:50pm causing pictures to fall from her wall.
The landlord replied on 10 March 2022 advising that the resident’s neighbour had been written to “asking them refrain from banging, stomping and jumping, whether it be within their home or in the communal areas of the building” and reminding them that they were responsible for the behaviour of their children in the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 March 2022 having received a letter from the landlord about the neighbour dispute. The resident stated that this was an “incompetent mistake” and she should not have received a letter as her neighbour was causing the noise nuisance. The landlord replied on 28 March 2022 explaining that the letter had been sent to both parties which was “entirely reasonable”.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 1 April 2022 stating that her mental health was being impacted by the “endless jumping from kids, shaking sash window, walls, furnishings and pictures”. She said she was unable to sleep, watch television, be on the phone or have visitors as a result of the noise.
On 10 April 2022 the resident reported again that her belongings were shaking due to banging from her neighbour’s property as the children were at home for the Easter school holidays. The resident said that the situation was impacting her health and that her depression was worsening as a result.
The resident reported to the landlord on 16 April 2022 that the sash windows in her kitchen and living room were sliding closed due to her neighbour’s children running around and the front door being slammed. The resident stated that she felt the incident constituted a hate crime as there were “racial undertones” which she could “feel”.
On 18 April 2022 the resident reported that her neighbour was singing “I am gonna do some ceiling banging” and then proceeded to make banging noises in his property. The resident then stated he shouted “slamming it” and slammed the front door. The resident complained that her neighbour had installed a doorbell CCTV camera to their front door which captured the communal garden, public highway, and neighbouring properties across the road.
The landlord emailed the resident on 19 April 2022 and stated this was in response to her emails of 1 April 2022, 5 April 2022, 10 April 2022, and 16 April 2022. It acknowledged that its response was outside of the ten working day timeframe outlined in its complaint procedure. The landlord said:
1. The resident lived in a property that had been converted into flats with little soundproofing and as a result noise was transmitted between flats.
2. The landlord did not have a contractual obligation to install soundproofing and it did not have the funds to do so.
3. It had been unable to evidence any noise other than “normal day to day noise from a family with young children”.
4. A case review would be carried out on 20 April 2022 and the landlord would update the resident following this.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 April 2022 and acknowledged that she was aware of the poor soundproofing in the building. She stated that her main issue was the slamming of the front door which caused her belongings to shake. The resident said that her depression had worsened and her elderly dog which had heart disease was being impacted.
On 1 May 2022 the resident reported that she had experienced noise from her neighbours slamming doors, banging, stomping, jumping, running and screaming on the following dates between the hours of 7:50am and 7:30pm:
1. 21 April 2022
2. 22 April 2022
3. 23 April 2022
4. 25 April 2022
5. 26 April 2022
6. 30 April 2022
7. 1 May 2022
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 May 2022 reporting that her neighbour had caused a noise nuisance on 2 May 2022 between 8:57am and 7:30pm by slamming their door, stomping and running. She said this was causing her anxiety which was “mentally and physically…debilitating”.
The resident reported what she described as a “serious incident” on 4 May 2022. She said that she had heard her neighbour telling his child to be quiet and referring to the resident as “the grump”. She stated that this was racially motivated.
On 9 May 2022 the resident reported that between the hours of 7:05am and 7:30pm on 7 May 2022 and 8 May 2022 her neighbour had caused a noise nuisance by banging. She stated that she had heard her neighbour telling his children to make a noise intentionally.
This Service has not seen evidence that the resident reported further issues until November 2022.
On 15 November 2022 the resident reported “animal abuse” by her neighbours as the noise they made by “Dragging furniture, kids running, dropping objects, slamming door, stomping” had caused her dog to be scared which was dangerous to its health. She also said that her “sanity had been compromised”.
On 17 November 2022 the landlord contacted the resident. It stated:
1. It accepted that the resident was “disturbed by noise transmission from the flat above” but that there was a difference between this noise transmission of “everyday living” noise and deliberate ASB.
2. The resident’s neighbours have two young children and the recordings provided by the resident show “day to day living noise which is normal for a family”. The noise recorded was between 4:30pm and 7:30pm when the children got home from school until they went to bed.
3. There was no evidence that her neighbour was deliberately causing noise or behaving in an antisocial way. The landlord had visited the neighbour’s property and noted that the property was carpeted in line with their tenancy conditions.
4. The resident’s complaints had been raised with her neighbours regularly. They had advised that they were upset by the complaints and had expressed a wish to move. The landlord pointed out however that as the property was a two-bed flat, the next tenants were also likely to be a family with at least one child.
5. It had to manage the resident’s expectations about the actions that it could take. It was able to offer the resident:
  1. mediation
  2. additional transfer points to assist with rehousing.
On 11 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to report that she had recently returned home from the hospital and was unable to recover in peace due to noise from her neighbour. She stated that she had been hospitalised “due to their racially motivate[d]…hate campaign”. She stated that she was registered as vulnerable due to a health diagnosis in 2020 – this Service has not seen evidence in respect of the resident’s health condition.
On 14 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and advised that she was to be released from hospital that week and asked that measures be put in place to stop the “noise and harassment”. She alleged that the landlord had breached her confidentiality by disclosing details of her private medical information to her neighbour.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has stated that she believes the landlord has breached GDPR by disclosing to her sensitive information relating to her neighbour, and by disclosing to her neighbour confidential medical information relating to herself. Matters pertaining to data protection and GDPR fall within the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO was set up to deal with concerns about data handling by organisations, it is therefore in a position to assess the regulatory aspects of the resident’s complaint about the handling of information. If the resident is concerned about this matter, the ICO can provide further advice and guidance on this matter.
The resident has also raised concerns regarding her neighbour’s installation of a doorbell CCTV camera which she believes impinges on the privacy of herself and other members of the public. Whether the resident’s neighbour is legally entitled to have CCTV filming the communal garden and public spaces is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Such matters are better suited to the legal process through which a determination can be made on the matter and the resident should seek her own legal advice about this. The resident is also able to contact the ICO for further advice and guidance regarding data protection issues.
The service acknowledges that the resident has been distressed by the noise that she has reported to the landlord. In cases concerning ASB or noise nuisance, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to ascertain whether the ASB occurred. Rather, it is the responsibility of this Service to assess how the landlord responded to the reports of ASB and whether its response was reasonable and proportionate in all circumstances of the case. This Service has also considered whether the landlord’s management of the ASB case and subsequent complaint were in accordance with its policies and procedures.

Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB reported after 19 March 2021

The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on noise complaints highlights the importance of landlord’s developing a distinct procedure for dealing with household noise rather than handling it under ASB procedures. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to consider the development of such a household noise policy.
The Spotlight report identified that, as in this case, noise transference is a key issue, and encouraged landlords to consider prevention through the installation of sound insulation. This said, the landlord correctly points out that it is not contractually obliged to provide sound insulation and this Service recognises that the cost of such works may be prohibitive.
The landlord sought to ascertain details of the ASB when it emailed the resident on 11 May 2021 however it was not until November 2021 that the resident submitted noise recordings and the landlord stated that the recordings did not evidence excessive noise outside of reasonable times. The landlord clearly explained to the resident on a number of occasions why the behaviour she was reporting did not constitute ASB. The landlord was reasonable in its view that some noise was to be expected from a family with children and that the noise ceased at around 7:30pm when the children went to bed. It was also clearly explained to the resident that, consequently, the landlord was unable to pursue further action against the resident’s neighbour. The landlord therefore attempted to manage the resident’s expectations. As the resident’s expressed concerns that the Noise App only recorded for short periods of time, the landlord missed an opportunity to reassure the resident it would fully consider her reports by installing noise monitoring equipment. It is not evident however, based on the resident’s own description of the noise experienced, that this would have altered the actions available to the landlord and affected the resident to her detriment.
The landlord asked the resident to complete incident diaries on five occasions between November 2021 and March 2022. This demonstrates that the landlord took reasonable steps to ascertain the level, nature, frequency and times of the noise. This was in line with the landlord’s ASB procedure which states that “[e]very effort should be made…to obtain completed diary sheets from the reporter”. The resident did not start to submit logs of specific noise events until 1 May 2022 when she began emailing the landlord with the details of individual events.
In cases of neighbour dispute caused by lifestyle differences, mediation can be an effective way of resolving conflict by bringing parties together to understand the views of the other party and arrive a mutual agreement to live amicably. Whilst the landlord offered mediation, this Service has not seen evidence that it was offered until 17 November 2022, one year and three months after the resident made a new complaint about the landlord’s ASB handling. For mediation to be effective, it should be offered at the earliest opportunity to prevent issues from escalating. Mediation may have been a successful method of conflict resolution if offered when the resident first began reporting issues of noise nuisance, it was too little too late by the time it was offered in November 2022. The landlord may have concluded that it could not have taken action against the resident’s neighbour but, as a responsible social landlord, it still had a duty to consider the impact of the behaviour on the resident.
The landlord’s ASB procedure states that cases involving hate crime will be referred to the Police. The definition of hate crime employed by the landlord (and indeed by the police and criminal courts) states that a matter constitutes a hate crime if the victim perceives it to be motivated by prejudice based on a personal characteristic such as race. There was evidence that the landlord contacted the police in the previous case investigated by this Service but the police did not take any further action. This does not however negate the need for the landlord to make further enquiries with the police when the resident reiterated her belief that her neighbour was harassing her on the grounds of race. As this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord referred the matter to the Police, it did not act in line with its procedure, nor did it explain why it did not make the referral.
The landlord did not investigate the resident’s concerns regarding her neighbour’s CCTV camera and its impact on her privacy. The landlord’s policy does not require that the neighbour seek permission for the camera but is should have sought to reassure itself that the camera was not unreasonably infringing on the resident’s privacy and that of the general public.
The landlord’s view that the noise reported by the resident was not excessive and constituted general household noise was reasonable given the details of the reports received. The landlord’s offer of mediation and assistance in applying for rehousing were positive however could have been more effective if offered much earlier in its handling of the resident’s reports.

The landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities

The resident drew the landlord’s attention to potential vulnerabilities on eight occasions between May 2021 and February 2023. The resident mentioned:
1. Deteriorating vision
2. Depression and anxiety
3. Her “sanity” was being compromised
4. Bereavement in 2022.
5. A health diagnosis in 2020 and hospitalisation in 2023.
The landlord has provided evidence to show that it has taken reasonable steps to address and consider the resident’s vulnerabilities since September 2022. However, this Service is concerned that it has seen little evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns regarding her health and wellbeing between May 2021 and August 2022. Aside from an offer to refer the resident to Occupational Therapy in July 2021, there is also no evidence that the landlord considered making welfare enquiries or referring the resident for any support between May 2021 and August 2022. Ignoring the resident’s clear disclosure of vulnerability was unsympathetic, insensitive to the resident’s situation, and not in line with the landlord’s procedure which states that it will “consider the support needs of the complainants” in all cases.
Prior to September 2022, the landlord has failed to consider the increased impact that the noise transference was having on the resident given her disclosed vulnerabilities. The Ombudsman expects landlords to have regard for a resident’s particular circumstances or vulnerabilities and the cumulative impact when dealing with complaints; however, this was not the case here. Prior to September 2022, there is no evidence that the landlord adhered to its own ASB procedure by considering making enquiries with social care services or recording the resident’s vulnerability on its case management systems. The landlord’s lack of consideration of the resident’s vulnerability during this period constitutes maladministration.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will not consider a complaint that has already been considered by the landlord or by the Ombudsman. This approach is reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 15 August 2021 regarding the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB. The landlord responded to the resident on 17 August 2021 stating that it had provided a response to her concerns on 19 March 2021 and attached a copy of its final response letter to the resident’s previous complaint.
It is clear that the landlord believed that this complaint was the same as the resident’s previous complaint as they were both about the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports and alleged racial discrimination. This Service can see how the landlord took this view but it was a misinterpretation of the situation. As the resident made reference to events that occurred after the landlord’s final response letter of 19 March 2021 it was not reasonable that the landlord refused to log and investigate the complaint.
By not raising a new complaint the landlord is in breach of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
This Service also notes that the response timeframes outlined in the landlord’s complaint procedure are not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which state that stage one complaint should be responded to within 20 working days as opposed to 21 calendar days as outlined in the landlord’s policy. This Service acknowledges that the landlord is a local authority which also has non-landlord functions. It does not follow however that this should absolve it of its responsibility to resolve complaints related to its landlord function within the timeframes outlined within the Code. This Service holds all member landlords to the same standard, and therefore local authorities should handle complaints about its landlord function by reference to the Code.
The information on the landlord’s website currently states that stage one complaints should be responded withing ten days and stage two complaints within 20 days. This indicates that the landlord’s current complaint procedure aligns with the Code. It is also observed that the landlord, in its self-assessment against the Code of 3 March 2023, stated that its “complaints policy clearly states our target response times and are aligned with the Complaint Handling Code”. The landlord’s Complaint Policy is not however published on its website and therefore a recommendation has been made that the complaint policy is published giving full transparency about its current complaint handling procedures.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB reported after 19 March 2021.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s view that the noise reported by the resident was not excessive and did not constitute ASB was reasonable. The landlord’s handling was generally in line with its procedures but it missed opportunities to explore mediation and offer support more quickly. It also failed to make a referral to the police for alleged hate crime.
Between May 2021 and August 2022, the landlord did not acknowledge or have regard for the resident’s vulnerabilities and the cumulative impact of these with the noise transference. By ignoring the resident’s disclosures it behaved unsympathetically, did not act in line with its own policy and missed multiple opportunities to refer the resident for further support during this period.
The landlord failed to appropriately log and investigate the resident’s complaint of 15 August 2021. The landlord conflated the issues raised in the August 2021 complaint with the resident’s previous complaint which it provided a final response to on 19 March 2021. Whilst the resident’s concerns in both complaints were the same, the resident had made further ASB reports within this five-month period and therefore the landlord should have logged and investigated the complaint. The landlord missed an opportunity to reiterate the actions it had taken to manage the ASB and manage the resident’s expectations.

Orders

A senior officer to apologise to the resident in person.
The landlord to pay the resident £550 comprising:
1. £50 for missed opportunities in its handling of the residents ASB reports;
2. £250 for failures in its consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities;
3. £250 for complaint handling failures.
If it has not done so within the last six months, the landlord to review staff ASB training materials and conduct staff training ensuring that all relevant staff understand the landlord’s approach to investigating allegations of hate crimes.
Investigate if the resident’s neighbours have a doorbell camera installed. If they do, the landlord should review the area captured by the camera to ensure it is not unreasonably infringing on the privacy of others and take steps to inform the camera owner of their responsibilities under data protection laws.
The landlord to contact the resident within 5 working days of the date of this report to discuss her vulnerabilities and signpost her to appropriate support.
The landlord to carry out a review of its procedures in relation to recording resident vulnerabilities, actively utilising vulnerability information in its day-to-day operations, and ensuring additional support is offered when required. The outcome of the review should be shared with this service within six weeks of this report.
If it has not done so within the last six months, the landlord to review staff training materials and conduct staff training making clear to all relevant staff that where a complaint contains new reports, it cannot be considered to have been already investigated by the landlord.

Recommendations

The landlord is to:

Carry out a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s noise complaint Spotlight recommendations with the aim of developing a good neighbourhood management strategy to assist in managing household noise as recommended by the Ombudsman in the Spotlight report on noise.
If it has not already done so, implement a separate housing complaints policy which complies with the Code and to publish in full its most recent version of its complaint policy on its website. The landlord is urged to carefully consider this recommendation.
Review its practices and processes when responding to Ombudsman information requests to ensure all relevant information is provided. The landlord should confirm that it has read and considered implementing the recommendations within the Ombudsman’s recent Spotlight report on record keeping.
The landlord should confirm its intentions in relation to the above recommendations within four weeks of the date of this report.