Lewisham Council (202002376)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002376

Lewisham Council

24 October 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. response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB),
2. response to the resident’s request to be moved,
3. complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant at the property of the landlord since 7 April 2011. The resident lives in a first floor flat in a three-story building. The landlord is a local authority that uses an Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO) to manage its day-to-day obligations. The ALMO will be referred to as “the landlord” throughout this report.
The landlord’s records note that the resident has “mental health or emotional impairments that have a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out daily activities.”
The tenancy agreement states that ASB includes “excessive domestic noise from banging doors.” Residents must not cause nuisance, annoyance, or ASB to any other tenants or commit harassment or a threat of harassment. If a resident is found to be in breach of their tenancy, it may lead the landlord to seek possession of the resident’s home or applying for an Anti-Social Behaviour Order, Anti-social Behaviour Injunctions, or using Acceptable Behaviour Contracts.
The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as conduct that “is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises or capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.” It also states that if an action plan is agreed upon, it will keep in touch with the resident while it investigates the case. It will also let the resident know when it has concluded its investigation and what the outcome was.
Its ASB procedure also states that ‘noise’ reports will initially be considered as nuisance and will be investigated by a Housing Officer. It will be considered as ASB if it is persistent noise and for a period of time that is unreasonable. The landlord will engage proactively and regularly with residents throughout a case in line with agreed action plans. The ASB Officer will contact the complainant within 3 working days from when the case has been allocated to the ASB team, and it will arrange to interview the alleged perpetrator within 10 working days after having spoken to the complainant.
The landlord’s ASB procedure also states that the landlord may consider:
1. referring to external mediation,
2. preparing a good neighbour agreement,
3. using Acceptable Behaviour Contracts.
The landlord’s ‘Required Access’ policy refers to tenants signing a tenancy agreement outlining their own rights and responsibilities. The agreements specifically include access provisions and note what could happen should the tenant fail to meet the obligations.
The landlord’s Housing Allocations policy states:
1. “Wherever possible, a landlord should be seeking to resolve issues of anti-social behaviour and harassment by taking action against the perpetrator rather than moving the victim.”
2. An Emergency Priority including applications from anyone who has been awarded an Emergency Priority move by a Housing Panel. This is only awarded if the panel is satisfied that the applicant, or a member of their household, has an urgent need for re-housing due to danger of life or would suffer from a severe physical or mental illness if they did not move.
3. The Housing Panel will only consider cases where people need to move in an emergency. The Panel will normally only consider cases that are referred by another agency, including the police, social care, health partners, or other welfare organisations.
The landlord has a three stage complaints process. Stage one has a 10-working day response timescale. Stage two and stage three of its process have a 20-working day response timescale.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may consider offering compensation if it finds failure in the service that it has provided. This can include discretionary payments if service standards have not been met. It will consider an offer of compensation between £251 – £1,000 if the resident “has suffered inconvenience and/or distress because of a serious or repeat service failure.”

Summary of events

On 18 April 2021, the landlord wrote to all the residents in the building to advise that it had received complaints of loud banging in the earlier hours of the morning and late evening, coming from within the building. Residents were asked to be courteous to others, and any resident affected should report this to the landlord.
The resident made reports of noise to the landlord during May 2021; however, it was not clear which neighbour the noise was coming from, and further investigations were needed. The landlord subsequently sent a further letter to all residents on 19 May 2021, which reminded them of their responsibilities regarding noise.
On 19 May 2021, the landlord spoke with the resident about her case. The resident also asked the landlord for guidance and information on the options available to her regarding moving home, which it provided. The landlord recorded that it called the resident again on 26 May 2021, but had been unsuccessful in speaking with her. The resident made a further noise report on 30 May 2021, and disputed having been contacted by the landlord. She advised that the noise disturbance was having an impact on her mental health.
The landlord visited the resident on 2 June 2021, to discuss the case and the impact the ASB had on her mental health. She advised that she thought the noise was coming from a different neighbour. The landlord spoke to the resident’s next-door neighbour that day, and they agreed to “keep down the banging of the doors between 10pm and 8am.” The landlord advised the resident of the agreement.
The following day, the resident made a further noise report to the landlord and provided noise recordings taken using the landlord’s noise app on her phone. She said she had attempted to speak with the neighbour but had been ignored. The landlord called the resident on 4 June 2021, and said it would listen to the noise recordings she had provided. It said that it would call her back on 9 June 2021, and it recorded that it called back as agreed but had been unsuccessful in speaking with her.
On 16 June 2021, the resident made further reports of noise to the landlord. The landlord called the neighbour but was not successful in speaking with them and sent them a letter advising it would be visiting them on 25 June 2021. It then called the resident to inform her of this. The landlord also provided the resident with contact details of people to talk to regarding her mental health. The landlord visited the neighbour on the 25 June 2021; however, there was no answer, and it advised the resident that it would visit again the following week.
On 30 June 2021, the landlord visited the resident’s neighbour and asked if it could arrange for an inspection to be carried out to their kitchen door to help alleviate the noise. The neighbour refused to allow access and was advised that a lack of cooperation would result in an escalation to its ASB team. The landlord followed this up with a letter to the neighbour confirming that it had arranged for an operative to visit their home on 22 July 2021, to inspect the door and see if the noise could be dampened.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 5 July 2021, to update her on her ASB case. She advised of her dissatisfaction with the appointment date of 22 July 2021, as she had been complaining since March 2021. In the call, she also asked why she had not been rehoused. The landlord advised that medical information was required for her to be considered for rehousing. The resident said she had already provided this information. The landlord recorded that during the discussion, the resident said she “was not willing to consider a mutual exchange.”
During July 2021, the resident made four reports of noise nuisance to the landlord. She said that the noise had become louder, and she had “injured” her back due to sleeping on her sofa for two months. The resident also reported that her neighbour was intimidating her, that she felt unsafe, and that nothing was being done by the landlord to resolve the matter. In late July 2021, the resident also advised that she had been updating the noise app and had not spoken to the person dealing with her case since June 2021.
The landlord was unable to gain access to the neighbour’s property on 22 July 2021, and the resident was made aware of this. The landlord said that it would be issuing the neighbour with a warning letter, asking that they make an appointment for it to inspect the door by 4 August 2021. If they did not do this, it would refer the case to its ASB team to consider taking enforcement action. The neighbour did not contact the landlord, and the case was referred to its ASB team on 5 August 2021, and an ASB case was opened.
On 6 September 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to ask for an update on how it planned “to tackle the anti-social behaviour coming from next door.” A call–back request was made, and the resident provided details of 5 reports she had made to the police between 6 August 2021 and 6 September 2021.
The landlord called the resident on 8 September 2021, discussed and agreed on an action plan that said:
1. It would visit the neighbour and issue a formal warning about access.
2. It would warn the neighbour not to harass the resident.
3. It would consider an injunction for access and harassment.
4. The resident would report incidents to the police and use the noise app to record noise nuisance if access was not given.
5. The resident had the option to pursue a mutual exchange.
6. The landlord also set out the requirements needed to be considered for an emergency housing panel, such as “a police commendation letter.”
On 14 September 2021, the landlord made a request for information to the police regarding the reports that had been made to them by the resident. The police responded to the landlord on 2 December 2021, and advised that the reports made to them in August 2021 “were investigated and closed after insufficient evidence.”
On 1 October 2021, the resident was sent a response from the local authority. It said that this was in response to correspondence sent by the resident to the mayor on 27 August 2021. The letter said:
1. The landlord and resident were in contact regarding reports made about the neighbour.
2. A detailed action plan had been agreed upon.
3. The landlord had given the neighbour a formal warning.
4. The resident had agreed to continue to provide evidence through phone calls and the noise app.
5. The landlord had provided information about the various options for the resident to move home.
On 27 October 2021, the resident responded to the local authority and advised of her continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her case. The resident said she continued to feel intimidated and threatened by her neighbour.
Following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord on 28 October 2021, and asked that it record a stage one complaint regarding its response to the reports the resident had made about her neighbour and the resident’s request to be moved. The landlord recorded the resident’s complaint and acknowledged this with her on 5 November 2021, it said that a response would be sent by 18 November 2021.
On 8 November 2021, the landlord spoke with the resident and said that it would be visiting the resident’s neighbour in the coming weeks to issue a verbal warning due to not allowing them access to their home. The resident stated that she wanted to move due to the incidents that had happened, including harassment and property damage. It was noted by the landlord that the resident said that she had been given a supporting letter to move by the police and that she would pass over the landlord’s details to the police.
On 16 November 2021, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response and said:
1. The resident had been allocated a new ASB officer, and they had been in touch with the resident on 8 November 2021, where a further action plan had been agreed.
2. It had made numerous attempts to engage with the neighbour during the past three months, and a warning letter had been sent advising of possible legal action. It would make a final attempt to gain access, and if unsuccessful, it would seek legal advice.
3. It would be making it clear to the neighbour that their behaviour towards the resident was unacceptable, and it would be serving them with a warning, called a ‘Letter Before Action.’ It would make it clear that any further incidents would result in action being taken against their tenancy, and it would take civil and legal action to protect the resident if needed.
4. It was working with the resident on the options available in relation to the request to move, and these were mutual exchange, bidding on a new property in the area, and applications for housing services in other areas, but it was not able to offer the resident another property directly or offer temporary accommodation.
5. The service the resident had received from the previous ASB officer had not been as prompt as it should have been, and it apologised for this. It was pleased to see the new officer was providing regular contact with the resident.
On 16 November 2021, the landlord asked the resident to provide copies of letters that she said she had received from the landlord in relation to a move. It would then be able to trace who it would need to contact regarding this matter.
On 7 January 2022, the resident emailed the local authority expressing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB. The resident was advised that a relevant officer would contact her following her email. The resident contacted the landlord twice following this, asking for an update. The landlord advised on 13 January 2022, that it had escalated the resident’s complaint and she would be contacted by 3 February 2022.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 17 January 2021, and advised that it would be visiting her neighbour the following week. It said that if they continued to refuse access, then it would look at potential legal options. It also told the resident that it would not be able to move her based on the harassment allegations due to a lack of evidence.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage two response on 2 February 2022. In its response, it said:
1. The support provided by the previous ASB officer had not reached its desired standard, and it had apologised to the resident for this. It confirmed a new officer was managing the case, and the officer had contacted the resident on 8 November 2021, and an action plan had been agreed.
2. It had contacted the police after chasing them a number of times regarding the reports that the resident had made to them about her neighbour. The police confirmed all reports to them had been closed with no further action due to a lack of evidence. The landlord had spoken to the resident on 17 January 2022, to update her on this.
3. There had been a scheduled appointment to visit the resident’s neighbour on 28 January 2022, but this had to be cancelled by the landlord “due to unforeseen and avoidable circumstances and is due to be rescheduled as soon as possible.”
4. If the landlord does not gain access to the neighbour’s property during that visit, it would be looking to take legal action to enforce access. It would contact the resident to advise of the outcome or the proposed timescale for any legal action.
5. It agreed with some of the concerns that the resident had raised and that the case had taken longer than usual to resolve. It said that this had been partially due to “slow management of the case and other unavoidable factors.” The case would be closely monitored moving forward to ensure delays were minimal and that the resident would be kept regularly updated.
On 7 February 2022, the landlord had internal discussions with its ASB Team about what action could be taken in relation to gaining access to the neighbour’s property. It said the following:
1. It had concerns in relation to the “length of time of the incident over 4 months to consider the case for legal action”, and its ability to “demonstrate the negative impact” of the neighbour’s behaviour in the community”.
2. It felt that, based on the details provided by the resident, it did not have solid evidence to issue a warning to the neighbour for harassment or intimidation, but recommended the neighbour be spoken to about the allegations made.
3. It could issue a warning letter to the neighbour for refusing to allow repairs.
4. It had not received the letter from the police to support the resident’s request to move.
The resident made a further noise nuisance report on 11 February 2022, and asked the landlord why the matter had not been resolved. The landlord visited the resident’s neighbour on 17 February 2022, and advised that the noise from their door banging was causing a noise nuisance to their neighbour. It said that its contractors would need to attend to carry out an inspection and possible repair, but the neighbour refused to allow access.
On 18 February 2022, the resident escalated her complaint to stage three of the landlord’s internal complaints process.
On 19 February 2022, the police sent an email to the landlord asking for it to contact the resident to discuss further reports of ASB that they had received from the resident. The email that was sent had a copy of a letter from the police dated 24 September 2021, advising of the police’s support in relation to the move the resident had requested.
On 1 March 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s email of 18 February 2022, and advised her that she would need to refer her complaint to an Independent Adjudicator within the local authority to be considered at stage 3. No evidence has been seen to confirm the date that the resident’s request was escalated to stage 3 of the complaints process.
The landlord sent a warning letter to the neighbour on 8 March 2022. It advised that possible action could be taken against them, including a notice of seeking possession or an injunction. It said that it would be visiting the neighbour’s property with the police in the coming weeks.
The landlord sent its stage 3 response to the resident on 6 July 2022. The response stated:
1. The resident had reported noise issues with her neighbour in May 2021, and the landlord visited the neighbour in early June 2021 in an attempt to resolve the situation. This was the response it would have expected to see.
2. In July 2021, the landlord explained the housing options available to the resident and said that, in the council’s opinion, the resident was adequately housed. The resident had disagreed, and the landlord had encouraged the resident to submit an online housing application with supporting evidence. It had not seen evidence that the resident had done this.
3. The situation escalated with police involvement in July 2021. They had not seen a copy of a letter in which the police recommended a transfer. It said that such a recommendation was highly unusual and would normally result in the resident going to an Emergency Housing Panel for an immediate transfer.
4. The suggestion by the landlord for the resident to make an application with supporting medical evidence was the correct one.
5. The situation with the resident’s neighbour was clearly serious and was being monitored by a multi-agency group, which included the police and met every six weeks. The police had not always provided information promptly or taken agreed-upon action, which limited what the landlord had been able to do to manage the situation.
6. The landlord had sent a warning letter to the neighbour on 22 March 2022, and was now reviewing whether it had enough evidence to take out an injunction. If the injunction did not have the desired effect, then it would expect the landlord to respond promptly and consider whether the case met the threshold for an emergency transfer. It could not conclude that this should have happened already.
7. It found no fault beyond that of what the landlord had previously acknowledged, and it had apologised in its complaint responses to the resident.
The landlord closed the resident’s case on 7 December 2022, and noted that no further noise complaints had been made.
The resident brought her complaint to this Service and advised that she would like the matter to be resolved, she would like to move as “this was an option granted” by the local authority and she would like to know what happened to the letter written by the police.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told this Service that she would like the landlord to move her to another property as an outcome of this investigation. It is not within the Housing Ombudsman’s powers to order the landlord to provide the resident with alternative accommodation or issue a determination on the landlord’s allocations process. Should the resident feel dissatisfied with its handling or response to complaints made about its allocations process, she should consider escalating her complaint to the Local Government Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). This report will consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move.

Response to reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy and procedures are clear in defining what it considers to be a noise nuisance case and an ASB case. It lists the actions it has available to it to help resolve both types of cases, such as mediation and good neighbour contracts, as well as possible legal action. Its procedure provides clear timescales for when it will contact the complainant and the alleged perpetrator when a case is escalated to its ASB team. Its Required Access policy makes reference to its responsibilities and those of the residents in relation to allowing the landlord access to the property.
The resident made initial reports of noise nuisance coming from a neighbour to the landlord in March 2021. At that time, she was unable to confirm which neighbour the noise was coming from. While the perpetrator could not be identified, the landlord sent two letters to all residents, which advised that noise complaints had been received. It subsequently asked for consideration to be shown to other residents. This was reasonable action taken by the landlord at that time while continuing to liaise with the resident to identify the perpetrator.
Following the identification of the perpetrator in early June 2021, the landlord spoke to the neighbour on two occasions about the noise coming from their property. Initially, the neighbour agreed to keep any banging of doors to a limited time of day. However, the resident made further noise reports. The landlord spoke to the neighbour for a second time and arranged for an inspection of the neighbour’s kitchen door with the aim of resolving the matter. The actions taken and its communications with the resident were appropriate in the circumstances.
Following its attempt to carry out the inspection of the neighbour’s property, it was appropriate to issue a warning in relation to them declining access. The landlord gave the neighbour the opportunity to arrange a new date for the inspection to be carried out. As the neighbour did not arrange a further date, the landlord escalated the case to its ASB team. While this Service does not dispute that the landlord did this to help it gain access to the property, it should have considered offering both mediation and issuing a good neighbour agreement to the neighbour in line with its policy.
The landlord’s ASB procedure states that its ASB team should contact a resident within three working days of a case having been escalated. Following this, it should have arranged an interview with the neighbour within 10 working days after having spoken to the resident. There has been no evidence to show that the landlord followed its process in contacting either the resident or the neighbour within this timescale. The evidence shows that the landlord’s ASB team first spoke with the resident four weeks after it recorded her ASB case, and only after she chased it for an action plan.
The landlord did not comply with its ASB policy. It only provided its first action plan after having been chased by the resident a month after the case escalation. This caused a delay in action being taken and added to the resident’s frustration and distress.
The landlord agreed to two action plans with the resident in relation to her ASB case, one in September 2021 and the second in November 2021. Its ASB procedure states that the landlord will engage proactively and regularly with residents throughout a case and in line with its action plans. During this time, the resident made reports to her local council and this Service to advise that she remained dissatisfied with the case handling, as well as making further reports to the police about her neighbour. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have remained in contact with the resident to provide reassurance.
While the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its handling of the case prior to November 2021, it continued to delay taking action to resolve the issue the resident had been reporting. As a result of the resident making further noise reports to the landlord, it issued a further warning letter regarding access to the neighbour in March 2022. The landlord closed the resident’s ASB case in December 2022, due to no further noise reports having been made. It has not been evident that the landlord took any further action to resolve the resident’s case, before having closed it. It did not confirm to the resident that it had concluded its case or what the outcome was before closing it, as it states it will in its ASB policy. The landlord did not keep the resident updated on her case or provide assurance that the noise nuisance would be addressed. This would have added to the distress and caused further impact on the resident’s wellbeing.
In summary, the landlord showed poor handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. It caused delays in taking action and communicating with the resident, it did not consider the options available to it such as mediation, a good neighbour agreement, or anti-social behaviour contracts, and did not take any action following warnings it issued to the neighbour. It did not follow its complaints policy or procedure when closing the resident’s ASB case or consider the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its case handling. As a result, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The Ombudsman orders it to pay £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused and £200 for the time and trouble in the resident chasing for updates.

Response to the request to be moved

The landlord’s Housing Allocations policy states that it should seek to resolve issues involving ASB by taking action against the perpetrator rather than moving the victim. It also provides information on what it considers an emergency priority to be. This is considered by an Emergency Housing Panel, usually following a referral made by a service such as the police or social services. It states that the panel needs to be satisfied that there is an urgent need for rehousing, such as danger to life or that the resident would suffer severe physical or mental illness.
While the landlord advised the resident it was not able to offer her a direct transfer or temporary accommodation, it should have provided clear and detailed reasons for its decision. It was also not clear in managing the resident’s expectations in the advice it gave regarding emergency priority applications. Although it said the resident could ask the police to provide a recommendation, it did not provide details on what would need to be included in a recommendation or how high the threshold was for the panel to consider a move. This gave the resident an unrealistic expectation of the impact a police letter would have on her case.
The resident asked the landlord about the options available to her to move home in May 2021. The landlord’s Housing Allocation’s Policy states that it will advise residents of the options available, and from the evidence seen, the landlord did this. The landlord reports having discussed the options available to the resident with her on several occasions and noted that she would not consider the option of a mutual exchange. It advised that medical evidence would be needed to support the resident’s application, which the resident said she had provided. The landlord acted in accordance with its policy when advising the resident of the housing options available to her.
Following discussions with the resident regarding her application to be moved, the landlord asked her to provide copies of the letters that it had sent to her in relation to this. The landlord asking the resident to provide these letters suggests that its record keeping regarding the resident’s application has been inadequate. The landlord should ensure that its record–keeping is of a high standard and that it records any communications that it has sent or received from residents, as standard good practice.
The resident advised the landlord of a letter from the police that supported her request to be moved; however, the landlord was not proactive in its approach to gaining a copy of the letter. As a result, it did not receive this until five months after it had been written. There has been no evidence seen by this Service to show that the landlord acknowledged receipt of the letter or provided the resident with any advice or guidance regarding an application to the Emergency Housing Panel following this. If the letter was not of the standard required by the panel, this should have been explained to the resident.
While the landlord did take the appropriate action in providing the resident with the housing options available to her, there has been no evidence seen to show how it was “working with” the resident regarding her request to be moved, as stated in its communications to her. It has said that it had not seen the letter from the police, while evidence shows that it had been received by the landlord. This shows a failure in the landlord’s record–keeping as well as poor communication both internally and with the resident. As a result, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move and is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation.

Complaints handling

The landlord acknowledged that it had received several mayoral and MP communications in relation to the landlord’s handling of the noise reports over the year. However, it did not record a complaint under its internal complaints process until contacted by this Service. As the landlord had been aware of the resident’s continued dissatisfaction with its handling of reports of ASB, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have accepted a complaint sooner.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised in its complaint responses for its handling of the ASB case and admitted that it had not been to the standard it should have been. While it was right to apologise, it did not provide detailed reasons for what caused the delays. It also referenced delays in information being received from the police; however, this should not have significantly impacted on the landlord’s ability to proactively manage the ASB.
The landlord lacked empathy and acceptance of responsibility for its service failures and for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It had recorded that the resident “had mental health or emotional impairments” but did not take this into consideration when responding to the resident’s complaint.
It apologised, stating that the resident was “unhappy with how this was handled and that we did not provide the level of service you expected.” This was not accepting of its failures. It also said that it had not seen the letter written by the police when records showed it had been received. It did not consider financial redress in line with its compensation policy for any delays, distress, or inconvenience to the resident because of its complaint handling.
There was a delay of five months in escalating and providing a response to the resident’s complaint at the final stage. Its response did not show that a thorough review of the complaint had been carried out and only referenced the initial report of noise nuisance and the landlord’s response to this.
In summary, the landlord delayed recording and escalating the resident’s complaint through its process. It also lacked empathy and acceptance of its responsibility, it failed to offer the appropriate redress, and failed to comply with its complaints policy. As a result, this Service has found maladministration in its complaint handling and is ordered to pay £200 compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. its response to the resident’s reports of ASB,
2. Its response to the resident’s request to be moved,
3. complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not carry out the actions it had agreed to in its action plans.
The landlord did not follow its ASB policy when closing the resident’s case.
The landlord did not consider the resident’s mental health and well-being or alternative actions it could have taken to address the ASB.
The landlord did not consider the letter written by the police in support of the resident’s move or provide the resident with its decision or outcome after reviewing the letter.
The landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy.
The landlord did not consider financial redress in line with its compensation policy.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders within this timescale also.
The landlord must pay compensation of £900 directly to the resident, comprising of:
1. £500 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident due to its poor handling of the ASB case,
2. £200 for its ineffective complaints handling,
3. £200 for the handling of the move request.
The landlord must write to the resident and include the following in its letter:
1. An apology for the delays, distress, and inconvenience that has been identified in this report.
2. An apology for not considering the letter written by the police to support the resident’s request to be moved.
3. Confirmation that the letter from the police has been considered and the outcome of this.
4. Confirmation that the noise from the neighbour banging their door has been resolved. If this has not been resolved and the matter is ongoing, the landlord must re-open the ASB case, and provide the resident with a plan of action, and monitor this to resolution.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider carrying out a review of how it monitors its ASB cases, action plans and no access visits.
The landlord reviews its record keeping process in relation to housing applications and customer contacts. The landlord may find the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM), a useful tool when doing this. The report can be found on our website: www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk .