Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202204058)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204058

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

28 February 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 was about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.(ASB)
2. The resident’s request to install sound-proofing insulation.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied his home property is a one-bedroom first floor flat under an assured tenancy which began on 23 March 2020. The building in which the flat was situated was built in June 2019. The resident was vulnerable in that he suffered from PTSD and hearing sensitivity.
The resident’s reports of ASB were in relation to his neighbour’s son. The neighbour will be referred to as “A”.

Legal and policy framework

Under the tenancy agreement, the resident was “responsible for their own behaviour and that of any person living in the property and visitor”.
The resident had an obligation:
1. Not to behave in a way that caused or was likely to cause nuisance, annoyance to their neighbour. This included loud music or noise, damaging property, dogs barking, slamming doors and criminal activity.
2. Not to use the property or communal areas for illegal purposes including the use, sale, and supply of illegalsubstances.
Breaching a tenancy condition, causing nuisance (by the occupier) and ASB were discretionary grounds for seeking a possession order in court proceedings. A conviction of a serious offence is a mandatory ground (where a court must make a possession order on proving the ground) in cases where the landlord was a social landlord. A “serious” offence could include drug related offences.
The Ombudsman has not had sight of A’s tenancy agreement but it is reasonable to assume that it was in similar if not the same terms as the resident’s.
The landlord’s ASB policy stated as follows:
1. Examples of ASB including loud music and/or noise that was capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a reasonable person, dogs barking and fouling that is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance.
2. Where residents reported behaviour they believed to be unacceptable, but the behaviour was not anti‐social in accordance with its definition, the landlord expected residents to be tolerant of other people’s lifestyles and would not accept reports of behaviour that most people accepted as a reasonable part of everyday life.
3. It would record reports of residents smoking cannabis as an ASB case, but if the complaint was from a single source, it may not be able to progress the case through lack of evidence because these reports were difficult to prove without other sources by other neighbours or professionals such as the police.
4. It cited a number of tools to tackle ASB, including noise monitoring.
5. It recognised the impact that ASB could have on its residents. It would carry out a risk assessment and had “appropriate measures” to respond to the vulnerability of those affected by it.
6. A complainant has the legal right to request a case review (Community Trigger) where the resident believed no action has been taken to address their reports.
The Equality Act 2010 (“the Act”) imposes duties on landlords towards residents who are deemed to be under a disability. A disability is defined as a physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ effect on a person’s ability to do normal daily activities. Under Section 20 of the Act, a landlord has a duty to make reasonable adjustments to a property. ‘Reasonable’ means that a landlord can consider whether such an adjustment would be practical and/or affordable. Adjustments can include installing insulation but under Paragraph (2) (8) of Schedule 4 of the Act, it is never reasonable for the landlord to have to take a step which would involve the removal or alteration of a physical feature (in the property).

Chronology

On 27 July 2021, two individuals who appeared to be neighbours of the resident made reports to the landlord about A’s son as follows:
1. Driving down the cul-de-sac “well over 20 miles per hour in numerous different cars, drinking and becoming drunk, shouting, swearing and arguing with partner”.
2. Spending time in the car playing music loud “for no apparent reason”..
3. Rubbish, including cigarette ends and alcohol cans left in the car park.
4. A parked van in the car park had not moved and it had damaged the grass which impacted on the estate.
5. Two cars speeding up and down the close a number of times a day.
6. Visitors in the street taking motorbikes apart in other residents’ designated parking spaces, creating oil stains in the road and parking spaces.
7. A “squaring up” and being aggressive when asked to turn the music down.
The landlord wrote to the individuals on the same day stating it would contact A and investigate the van being parked in the car parking space.
On 30 July 2021, the landlord spoke to A who explained her son’s circumstances. The landlord has shared the content of the conversation with the Ombudsman but is confidential to a third party so will not disclose the information in this report. A said she would speak to her son regarding the loud music and vehicles. The van belonged to A, it was taxed and insured, which satisfied the landlord.
The landlord wrote to other neighbouring residents on 30 July 2021 that it had spoken to A who was “exceptionally apologetic” and set out the action A would take. The landlord would continue to monitor the case and invited any further reports from the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 August 2021 and made the following report about A’s son.
1. A’s flat was above his.
2. Noise consisted of music and of doors banging “at all hours”.
3. A’s son slept in his car.
4. The resident suffered from PTSD and the noise could trigger him which was difficult to manage.
5. He said he got on well with A. He did not want the landlord to contact her.
6. He was awaiting for the landlord to fit insulation as he believed there was an issue with the cavity wall and that was why he was so badly affected by the noise from A’s property. The resident had not received any timescale for the installation from the landlord.
On the same day, the landlord suggested the resident use a Noise App and agreed to contact him after a week and asked if he had support for his PTSD which he had. It would also chase the insulation.
On 9 August 2021, the landlord noted the Noise App recordings of 5 and 6 August 2021, summarised as follows:
1. After midnight, loud voices, not very loud and muffled voices,
2. In the afternoon and late evening, a washing machine, a door banging loudly, dogs barking, a door closing and someone moving around.
3. Late evening, loud and muffled voices and a conversation but “not deliberately loud.”
The resident commented the noises made him feel anxious and apprehensive that he would not sleep and that some of it was normal living noise that he “should not be hearing.”
The landlord wrote to the resident on the same day to state it had heard muffled and doors banging and would chase the insulation and update him which, according to its internal emails, it did. The landlord considered that insulation could dampen “airborne” noise like voices. Carpets could assist. It was difficult to reduce doors banging. The properties were built to the latest building regulations to reduce noise and was not aware of any planned works.
The next day, the landlord’s internal emails noted that the normal noise was more audible in those particular propertiesand it was being discussed.
The landlord also noted further Noise App recordings as follows from 9 to11 August 2021 the resident sent in, in order to evidence the need for sound insulation, summarised as follows:
1. Mid-morning and evening: a dog barking throughout the recording, doors closing, a door banging closed, vehicle engine, and muffled music “possibly” from the vehicle.
On 13 August 2021, further Noise App recordings were noted, summarised as follows:
1. In the early hours, at times muffled and, at times, loud voices, some unidentified background noise and a door closing.
The landlord wrote to A on the same day, referring to its discussion with A of 30 July 2021. The Ombudsman has seen the letter but cannot disclose the contents.
On 16 August 2021, the landlord noted further Noise App recordings, summarised as follows:
1. Early hours: muffled voices, some movement it deemed to be general household noise, a door closing, a dog barking briefly.
The landlord wrote on the same day stating the sound was general household noise and not ASB. The resident replied stating that he had not heard further about the insulation. In relation to ASB, there had been no further major incident but A’s son was still driving too fast on the estate.
Also on the same day, the resident provided the landlord with a video recording of what he described to be “drug dealer drops”. The landlord noted the video had no time or date stamp. After viewing it, it was unable to draw any conclusion and advised the resident to send it to the police. The recording was very dark but it had noted that the car driver was briefly visiting A’s address. The resident provided the date and time and registration but had not, at that point, reported it to the police.
On 19 August 2021, the landlord noted the following Noise App recordings as follows:
1. In the early hours, some quiet background noise, quiet voices.
On 23 August 2021, the resident reported that A’s son had been “whizzing in and out” in his car in the early hours playing loud music, arguing and smoking. The resident did not want to fall out with A. On the same day, the landlord’s notes of the Noise App recordings stated, summarised as follows:
1. Early evening: doors banging, a “continual hum”, music, loud bass and in the afternoon the resident recording general noise, including a dog barking to evidence lack of insulation, engine noise and loud music.
The landlord wrote, again on the same day, that it would not progress to legal action “yet”. It offered to speak with A that it was continuing to receive reports which were supported by evidence and warn her if they continued they would consider legal action. The resident suggested this be left “a week” and asked the landlord to consider the recording in relation to insulation. The landlord would contact him and update the relevant teams regarding the daily living noise.
On 24 August 2021, the landlord noted that a further video recording of the resident showed a car with people in the car, including A’s son. It evidenced no ASB, due to the poor quality footage and audio. On 27 August 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident that the reports would not be treated as ASB but as daily living noise. It would close the case, having reported the noise issue to the relevant team. It invited the resident to make fresh reports if required. The information to date would remain on file and would be taken into consideration should there be any further complaints.
There is a gap in the evidence which would appear to be because no further incidents had occurred.
On 12 November 2021, the resident reported ASB involving drug dealing and drug use when A was not there and had reported this to the police. The landlord replied that his case had been allocated to the same housing officer as previously, who would contact him within the following five working days. It advised the resident to make notes of any further incidents.
On 18 November 2021, the resident raised a complaint that he had not been contacted as promised. He said the landlord should not “get involved as he had reported the drug-related incidents to the police and he did not want the landlord to ‘tip (A’s son) off’. As the report had concerned allegations of drug use, it enquired what he wanted it to investigate. The resident replied A “sleeping in his car and coming in at all hours”. The landlord stated it was unlikely to be able to take any steps about A’s son sleeping in his car.
The housing officer contacted the resident the same day. The resident reported that A’s son sitting in his car most of the evening indicated dealing drugs. He had parked the car on the grass. He reported these events occurred when A was away from the property. The landlord stated that it was unable to act without police action being taken in the first instance, but it would speak to A regarding the reports of A’s son “strange” behaviour. The resident stated there had been “a vast” improvement for several weeks. The landlord would contact the police and A and would update the resident.
The next day, the landlord noted that the resident’s videos were not dated or time stamped and the recording quality was poor. It noted what it observed, including a person sitting in the car in the car park area, items being passed from one vehicle to the other, and the sound of car doors and voices.
On 26 November 2021 the landlord spoke to A who explained the reasons her son was staying with her. Again, the landlord has shared the detail with the Ombudsman who cannot share it in turn in this report, given it is sensitive information. A had not been away from the property and denied the reports.
The landlord tried to phone the resident on 12 and 15 December 2021. On 15 December 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident asking him to contact it and would close the case within seven days if it did not hear further. As there was no further contact, the landlord closed the case. On 7 January 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord reporting further driving on the grass, door banging, as well as general banging which he believed to be deliberate. He also reported that there were car parts by the bin store, visitors in the early hours of the morning, drug taking, and arguments about the resident recording activities. The landlord stated it would pass the report on to the relevant teams, regarding estate management.
On 12 January 2021, the landlord noted reports the resident made at its meeting with the resident the day before, including A “constantly coming and going from the property”, driving over the grass, and suspected drugs dealing that he had reported to police. He expected a certain amount of noise but the extent was not acceptable. It noted that the CCTV clips showed “lots of” entering and leaving the property repeatedly at 10-15 minute intervals including through the night. It said it would contact the police. It could not take action in relation to the reports but the police could. If the police were successful with a prosecution, it would consider taking legal action. It would put him on the list for sound monitoring equipment which measured decibels of the noise, to give a clearer indication of next steps. The relevant team was considering the amount of noise travelling between properties. The resident reported the car was not roadworthy. It would run checks and contact the local authority if necessary and would update the resident after it had heard back from the police. The resident reported an update from the police who were looking into getting a warrant and carrying out plain-clothed surveillance.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 February 2022 referring to his previous complaint that he was frustrated nothing had been done regarding his “sound proofing”. The landlord had had his loft insulated but that would not resolve the noise. He asked the relevant department to listen to his noise recordings.
According to the landlord’s internal email of 17 February 2021, an initial “enquiry” had been sent to the ASB and “development” team. It investigated whether it would consider anything further but concluded on 25 February 2022 that it would not do so.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 25 February 2022 and summarised it as follows:
1. Noise/anti-social behaviour (ASB) – excessive noise coming from a neighbouring property. Reasonable action had not been taken, based on these recordings. There had been damage to his car and drug dealing in the area.
2. The resident wanted the landlord to install sound proofing to minimise noise from neighbouring property and it take action against reported ASB.
There followed an internal investigation and on 2 March 2022, an internal email noted that it would consider whether it could “improve on industry standard” to reduce noise in a cost-effective way.
The landlord responded at the first stage of its complaints procedure on 11 March 2022 as follows:
1. The landlord had listened to recordings and confirmed the noise did not amount to ASB or evidence of excessive noise levels.
2. In the first ASB case, it had taken action with “the reported party” to address the behaviour of the household member. The noise was considered to be household noise and not excessive based on the recordings submitted.
3. The second case concerned a report of potential drug dealing. It had closed the case as it did not hear further from the resident after its letter 15 December 2021.
4. It had reviewed the resident’s CCTV footage in January 2022 but the case remained closed as the footage/recordings did not demonstrate ASB/excessive noise levels. It was open to the resident to make further reports.
5. It had acted appropriately and in line with its policy and procedures. The complaint was not upheld.
6. There were currently no plans to install “further” soundproofing to the property. The landlord had visited the construction site when the property was being built and had verified that all specifications and requirements were met. Ithad not received any further evidence which warranted further steps to be taken regarding sound insulation. The Police were investigating potential drug dealing, damage to his car and/or property which the landlord categorised as criminality. It worked closely with the Police, who took the lead on such issues which were followed by tenancy enforcement action. It would take proportionate and appropriate action based on the severity of the tenancy breach. It had not received any information from the Police which would cause it to consider taking further action.
The Ombudsman has not had sight of the request to escalated the complaint, however the landlord noted it was reviewing its complaint response on 24 March 2022 that the resident’s application had included an Occupational Therapist (OT) report which had noted “Hyperacusis” and “Intermittent Tinnitus”and recommendations for his rehousing.
On 29 March 2022, the landlord wrote with its complaint review response as follows:
1. It had listened to the recordings submitted by the resident on 27 and 28 March 2021. It upheld the first complaint response. In relation to insulation, the development met or exceeded the industry standards which were in place at the time of construction. It was unable to agree to additional soundproofing/noise insulation. It appreciated that the noise caused him “some distress”, but the noise was neither unreasonable or excessive.
The resident contacted this service on 29 May 2022 describing the impact of the noise. A’s property had been raided by the police. He was unable to move home, due to his complex heath issues and local family support.
From 31 May 2022, the resident made further reports of noise which he stated was deliberate and property damage. The local authority and the police were involved. The landlord contacted both agencies. A’s son insurers had admitted liability for damage to the car.
A video of 27 June 2022 provided by the resident showed two cars on the driveway with the second car revving an engine and performing a 3-point turn.
The resident informed this service on 30 September 2022 that the local authority issued A with “a final warning“ which had been broken already. The landlord was gathering evidence for eviction. The noise proofing issue remained.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.(ASB)

It was reasonable of the landlord to offer the resident a Noise App in response to his reports in August 2021. The evidence showed that the landlord was proactive in monitoring the case, and in taking prompt steps in relation to the reports of ASB, including listening and noting up the Noise App reports, which demonstrated it considered the Noise App in detail and had kept an open mind.
The landlord, as well as considering its options, managed the resident’s expectations. It contacted and wrote an appropriately robust letter to A insofar as the resident was comfortable with the contact. It was reasonable that in the circumstances, it was satisfied about A’s actions and that the van was legal (as it had made checks. It referred the resident to the police but, given the poor quality of the images, was reasonably unable to draw any conclusions from the August 2021 video clip.
It was also reasonable of the landlord to conclude that the Noise App recordings did not evidence ASB but had recorded normal household noise. The resident did not dispute some of the noise constituted ordinary levels but made the point that he was asking the landlord to consider insulation and later on, sound insulation. The housing officer appropriately distinguished between noise reports and ASB, as also identified by the resident, and referred him to the relevant team for the insulation and liaise with it. It was then appropriate for the landlord to close the case on the basis it considered, that while there were noise issues, there was no ASB.
While the landlord asked about the support he was getting, given the resident informed the landlord he had PTSD, it was inappropriate that the landlord failed to carry out a risk assessment, as required by the landlord’s own policy and in particular as the resident had expressed his vulnerability. However, there was no evidence that the landlord could have done anything in addition to the steps it took therefore the Ombudsman does not find service failure in this regard.
The November 2021 reports had more emphasis on criminality. It was reasonable of the landlord not to have based any conclusions on the basis of A’s son sitting or sleeping in his car alone, but to refer the resident to the Police, given their investigatory powers regarding criminal acts. It was also reasonable to seek to investigate the legality of the vehicle and the “strangeness” of A’s son behaviour, while explaining that the landlord could not prevent him from sleeping in his car.
There was no evidence that the landlord had sought further information from the Police and provided an update as promised. This is unsatisfactory, given that the landlord had stated it would update the resident and also it should follow through enquiries about whether its residents or their visitor, for whom the neighbour was responsible, was engaging in criminal activity in the locality.
It was reasonable to close the case on the basis of no further contact from the resident, while reassuring him that the information to date would be taken into consideration in a further case. Indeed, that was demonstrated by the landlord linking the individuals’ complaints in July 2021 to the resident’s case.
It was reasonable of the landlord to be concerned about the January 2022 video recordings however it was not reasonable or appropriate for a landlord to decline to take action where there is criminality. It is reasonable to rely on the police to a certain extent, as the police have greater investigatory powers and are the appropriate body to investigate and address criminal offences. However, the standard of evidence in criminal cases is higher. A prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the civil burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord’s response that it was a police matter, was frustrating for the resident and did not demonstrate its commitment to tackling ASB. Its explanation that without police “convictions”, the landlord had no power to deal with criminal offences was not appropriate. The landlord would not be able to apply for a criminal sanction but it has the power to enforce its tenancy agreement and apply for injunction proceedings. Moreover, its own policy stated that ASB included criminal behaviour and by setting out circumstances where it would not address cannabis use, implied it would address unlawful behaviour. Simply referring the resident to the police was not adequate. By not taking action, the landlord runs the risk of appearing to tolerate criminal behaviour.
However, it is noted that the resident asked the landlord not to get involved in the criminal aspect, should it prejudice the police action. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider an application for a community trigger, in accordance with the landlord’s own policy. However, there was no evidence that such a application would have been successful. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman does not find there was service failure in relation to those aspects but will make recommendations in that regard.
It is noted that, following the conclusion of the landlord’s complaints procedure, there was subsequent corroborated evidence of criminal behaviour and excessive noise by A’s son. It is also noted an admission of liability for damage is not evidence that the damage was caused deliberately. It is not clear whether the landlord is seeking A’s eviction. While the resident’s view appear to have been vindicated at least in part, the Ombudsman is unable to investigate the landlord’s responses to the further developments. It would not be reasonable for the Ombudsman to apply that retrospective information to their judgment of the landlord’s actions but would expect the landlord to have acted appropriately in response.

The resident’s request to install sound–proofing insulation.

The landlord’s records indicated that it considered sound-proofing the property. While the internal records suggested that the landlord was concerned about costs, the landlord did not explain to the resident why it did not consider further insulation.
It would have been appropriate in the circumstances of this case for the landlord to have considered sound proofing in the context of any obligations under the Equality Act 2010. In order to consider its duties, the landlord would have to consider whether the resident is under a disability within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, whether as a result of that disability the resident was particularly susceptible to noise, and whether the landlord was required to take note of that extra sensitivity and whether sound-proofing was a reasonable adjustment that it could provide in the circumstances.
While Schedule 4(8) of the Equality Act 2010 states that “It is never reasonable for A to have to take a step, which would involve the removal or alteration of a physical feature”, it was open to the landlord to consider whether sound-proofing may have been deemed to be an auxiliary aid and what works would be required.
However, the landlord was entitled to consider costs as the Act only requires a landlord to consider adjustments that are reasonable, which includes having regard for costs. The Housing Ombudsman recognises that a social landlord is required to have regard for its limited resources.
While it was inappropriate not to have considered the resident’s particular vulnerability, given it was made clear to the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to gauge what would have been the outcome. It is not for the Housing Ombudsman to speculate what the outcome would have been if the landlord had so considered the issue. It is for the Housing Ombudsman to consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports, including what it considered or did not consider. In the circumstances, it cannot infer this impacted on the resident in practice, however the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
It was reasonable of the landlord to consider the efficacy of insulation and to consider sound-proofing to a degree, and even refer to carpeting. However, it did not take it any further. There was no evidence that it followed up its promise to install noise monitoring equipment in order to measure decibels or explain why it did not do so. It failed to consider alternative measures to mitigate the noise. This was inappropriate, given the resident was vulnerable and given that it had recognised that the properties had poor sound insulation. It became entrenched in the approach that the property was built in accordance with building regulations and to standards. However, there were a number of approaches the landlord failed to consider, such as exploring floor coverings and soft door closures. The landlord is referred to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on noise. Spotlight on noise complaints – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)
The resident’s complaint was that the noise was affecting his mental health. The Ombudsman cannot assess the extent to which a landlord’s service failure or maladministration has contributed to or exacerbated a complainant’s physical and /or mental health. It cannot assess medical evidence and does not make findings on matters such as negligence. However, the Ombudsman may set out a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a complaint by a particular service failure by a landlord.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There was no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint of 18 November 2021. It was inappropriate not to respond and when it did in March 2022, it was inappropriate to have stated that the January 2022 footage did not evidence ASB, given that the landlord had sufficient concerns to refer the resident to the police. The letter did not explain its decision not to install “further” soundproofing. Moreover, the landlord had not installed any soundproofing, only loft insulation.
The landlord did not take the opportunity of the review to review its actions, or demonstrate empathy to the resident. While in its investigation, it had referred to the resident’s OT report in his original housing application, it did not take it into account or cause it to review its approach.
The response reiterated that the noise was not excessive. The resident’s point was that the noise was ordinary household noise but that it had a particular effect on him, so the landlord appeared to miss the point. Even if the landlord had reached the conclusion after a review that it would not be reasonable, proportionate or even possible to instal sound-proofing, the landlord should have provided an explanation and explored alternative measures.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.(ASB)
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the resident’s request to install sound-proofing insulation.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

While the Ombudsman considers that it was inappropriate that the landlord declined to act until there was an outcome from the police, the resident asked the landlord not to get involved in that aspect of his reports at that time. While the resident was distressed by A’s behaviour, the landlord responded to the resident promptly and proactively. Its decisions were reasonable and proportionate and overall, the landlord took reasonable steps in response to the reports of ASB.
The landlord did not consider the resident’s vulnerability and alternative measures to reduce noise into his property.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint of November 2021, it did not take the opportunity of the complaints procedure to understand the resident’s circumstances and to review its approach to the resident’s case.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £450 within 4 weeks as follows:
1. The sum of £300 in relation to the resident’s request to install sound-proofing insulation.
2. The sum of £150 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord should undertake a review of the resident’s property and A’s property in order to consider noise reducing measures, including considering the instruction of a noise expert, and write to the resident with a copy to the Ombudsman within 6 weeks of this report.
The landlord should confirm compliance with orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 6 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should consider reviewing its practices to ensure that it considers taking appropriate steps in cases where criminal behaviour is involved and not leave action solely to the police.
2. The landlord should ensure it considers whether to recommend a community trigger to a resident.
3. The landlord should consider together with its repair staff a review of and training in relation to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on noise complaints. NOISE complaints October-2022.pdf
4. The landlord should, in agreement with the resident and if has not done so already, record with all its services that the resident is vulnerable and the nature of his vulnerability, in order to inform the appropriate standard of response from the landlord.
5. The landlord should consider the resident’s current circumstances in the light of the OT report in his application for rehousing.
6. The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 6 weeks of this report.