Midland Heart Limited (202218273)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218273

Midland Heart Limited

31 January 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports that the landlord had not removed weeds from the nearby alleyway and footpaths.
2. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by neighbours, including fly tipping, overflowing rubbish bins, graffiti, damage to the resident’s garden lights and damaged communal fencing.
3. The resident’s report that the landlord’s contractor failed to clear away waste material which punctured her car tyres.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The property is a 2-bedroom, end of terrace house and the resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 16 January 2015. The landlord is a registered social housing provider and has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that tenants must not apply graffiti on or in the property and must keep communal areas in a clean condition.

Summary of events

On 2 September 2022, the landlord raised an order to repair the damaged communal fence panels near the resident’s property.
On 11 September 2022, the resident submitted an online enquiry form to the landlord reporting the following issues:
1. The communal fence had been damaged again.
2. There was litter present at one of the neighbouring properties and graffiti on the walls of one of the other neighbouring properties.
3. The resident stated that the graffiti had not been dealt with despite graffiti removal being added to the service charge.
4. Some of the children were causing problems on the street.
5. There were large weeds in the alleyway, which were supposed to be treated annually.
6. Rubbish was continually piled on neighbours’ bins and was ending up on the resident’s driveway.
The landlord’s records show that the resident made further contact with the landlord on 13 September 2022 to report ‘fly tipping’ by one of her neighbours. The records show that the landlord logged a formal complaint on 26 September 2022 following further contact from the resident about the same issues.
The landlord’s records state that its contractor started work on the damaged communal fence on 28 September 2022. However, the notes state that the landlord took a decision to replace the wooden fence panels with concrete gravel boards and therefore had to wait for additional materials to complete the work.
On 1 October 2022, the landlord’s grounds maintenance contractor wrote to the landlord to report that the alleyway near the resident’s property had been cleared and sprayed for weeds.
The landlord’s records show that the resident phoned on 3 October 2022 to make a complaint that she had raised various issues in September 2022 and no one had contacted her. She was unhappy that the landlord had not contacted her to provide information about its grounds maintenance responsibilities. She had also been waiting for information on when the landlord’s environmental team had last visited the estate and when it was due to return.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 October 2022 to acknowledge her stage one complaint that she had made on 26 September 2022.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 October 2022 and pointed out that she had submitted her initial complaint on 11 September 2022 and had been given conflicting information by the landlord about how her complaint would be managed. She stated that in addition to the points included in her earlier complaint she also wanted to draw the landlord’s attention to the following:
1. One of the neighbours had a ‘punch bag’ hanging outside their front door and this was unsightly.
2. Overflowing rubbish from a neighbour’s property was being blown onto the resident’s driveway.
3. The damaged communal fence was due to have been repaired on 30 September 2022 as she had received texts confirming this. However, no work was carried out on this date.
4. The resident stated that she was seeking additional compensation for the stress and inconvenience the issues were causing her.
On 17 October 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident with its stage one reply, in which it stated the following:
1. The area around the resident’s property was not included in the grounds maintenance contract, however, the contractor had attended on 3 October 2022 and was due to return during week commencing 24 October 2022.
2. The landlord confirmed that the resident had reported various issues on 11 September 2022 and it had passed these to its Tenancy Services Team. However, as the issues related to a neighbour, the landlord was limited in terms of the information it could provide to the resident due to data protection rules.
3. It accepted that the resident had reported fly tipping on 13 September 2022 and had chased the landlord on “several occasions” for a reply. The landlord apologised and confirmed that it had arranged for one of its staff to visit the estate, including the resident’s home, on 27 October 2022. The officer would look at the graffiti during the visit.
4. The landlord accepted that it had received “several reports” about the defective communal fencing from the resident and her neighbours. The landlord confirmed that a repair had been raised and the work was due to be completed on 25 October 2022.
5. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had asked for her complaint to be escalated on 26 September 2022 and it had not done this. It apologised and stated that it had met with the relevant teams to see how it could learn from this experience.
6. The landlord offered a total of £70 compensation, which was comprised of £35 for poor communications and £35 for the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint.
The resident responded to the landlord on the same day (17 October 2022) and stated the following:
1. The landlord had been incorrect to say that the area around her property was not included in the grounds maintenance contract. She pointed out that a charge for weeding had been added to her annual service charges and there had been previous correspondence with the landlord confirming the area was covered by the contract.
2. The resident asked why graffiti removal had been added to the service charges but was not being carried out. She asked why the landlord had not yet removed the graffiti she had reported.
3. The resident said she objected to the landlord citing data protection rules as the reason for not providing her with the information. She was requesting the dates that the fly tipping and the punch bag would be removed.
4. The resident acknowledged that the neighbour had removed the fly tipping during the previous week following the landlord’s intervention. However, since then more boxes and rubbish piles had appeared in front of the neighbour’s bins. The resident pointed out that it was an ongoing problem.
5. The resident said she had noted the fence was due for repair on 25 October 2022 but asked why it had not been repaired on 30 September 2022 as she had previously been advised. She stated that the fence was continually being damaged and the problem was not being resolved.
6. The resident reported that the fence at the rear of her house had been damaged, children had climbed the fence and smashed her garden lights. The resident requested to be reimbursed for the cost of the garden lights.
7. The resident advised the landlord that she wanted to escalate the ASB in the area to a multi-agency review. She therefore requested the landlord to confirm that the matter would be escalated to an ASB multi-agency review.
8. The resident ended by stating that the issues were causing her distress and inconvenience.
On 19 October 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint.
On 22 October 2022, the resident submitted a data subject access request. The landlord replied on 24 October 2022 and sent the resident a link to its subject access request form.
The landlord’s records state that the grounds maintenance contractor attended site again on 24 October 2022 and confirmed that the weed treatment had been carried out to the areas near the resident’s property.
The landlord’s records show that during October 2022, the landlord had taken the following action in relation to issues raised by the resident:
1. The landlord spoke to the resident on or about 21 October 2021 while it was on site and she showed the landlord the weeds she was concerned about. The landlord’s observations were that the weeds had been treated and just needed follow-up maintenance.
2. The landlord had visited the estate on 27 October 2022 and identified that fence panels needed repairing, chalk had been used to write on the walls of a neighbouring property and the same property needed tidying up. The landlord had noted that another property had a punch bag hanging at the front and had overflowing bins. The landlord could not see any other issues on the estate during the visit and had knocked on the resident’s door but she was not at home.
3. The landlord sent warning letters to the two neighbours on 28 October 2022 regarding the untidy appearance of one of the properties (including the garden). The landlord also notified the neighbours about the untidy bins, the chalked graffiti on the walls and the punch bag hanging at the front of one of the properties. The landlord stated that the issues needed to be addressed by 14 November 2022 when it would carry out a follow-up inspection.
The landlord completed the work to the communal fence on 27 October 2022. The work involved replacing the wooden fence panels with 36 concrete gravel boards. The job notes stated that the use of the concrete boards made it a larger job.
On 30 October 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord and advised that two of her car tyres had been punctured by nails protruding from a fence panel. She advised that the panel and some concrete pieces had been left on her driveway by the contractor who had repaired the fence on 27 October 2022. The resident asked the landlord when the contractor would remove the waste material it had left.
On 1 November 2022, the resident submitted itemised bills for tins of foam that were needed to carry out temporary repairs to the tyres and for the two replacement car tyres. The cost totalled £143.98.
The landlord’s records show that it carried out a follow-up visit to the resident’s estate on 10 November 2022 and noted that the punch bag had been removed and the outside of the neighbour’s property that needed tidying looked much better.
On 10 November 2022, the landlord sent its stage 2 reply, in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord accepted that it had incorrectly stated in its stage one reply that the area around the resident’s property was not included in the grounds maintenance contract. It confirmed that the grounds maintenance contractor should be attending to the weeds and litter in the area. The landlord apologised for the error and offered the resident £35 compensation. It confirmed that the contractor was next due to visit on 14 November 2022.
2. The landlord advised that the service charge paid by the resident for graffiti removal only covered communal areas. Therefore, the resident’s neighbour was responsible for removing the chalk graffiti on the walls of her property.
3. The landlord confirmed it had attended the estate on 27 October 2022 and had sent warning letters to the neighbours regarding the various issues it had noted during its inspection. The landlord confirmed it would re-inspect the area on 11 November 2022 to ensure the neighbours had dealt with the issues. The landlord apologised for the delay in addressing the fly tipping and graffiti and the need for the resident to chase these matters. It therefore agreed with the £70 compensation that had been offered at stage one, which the resident had not yet received.
4. The landlord offered the resident £143.98 to reimburse her for the damaged tyres and offered an additional £50 to recognise the inconvenience of having to replace her tyres.
The resident replied to the landlord on the same day (10 November 2022) and requested the landlord to keep her complaint open until all of the issues had been resolved. She reminded the landlord that the fence panel and other waste material from the contractor still needed to be removed.

Events after the landlord’s final complaint response letter

On 17 November 2022, the resident contacted this Service to report that the contractor had still not removed the discarded materials outside her property.
On 10 August 2023, the landlord wrote to this Service to confirm that a new grounds maintenance contractor had commenced in December 2022. The contractor had attended the estate on 30 March 2023, 5 May 2023, 11 July 2023 and 26 July 2023 to carry out grounds maintenance.
On 16 August 2023, the landlord wrote to this Service stating that it had reviewed its complaint handling and had offered the resident an additional £150 compensation. The offer was because the landlord had failed to log a formal complaint in January 2021 and had only done so in October 2022.
On 19 January 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident and offered her an additional £100 compensation as it had not addressed her request for reimbursement for the damaged garden lights. The landlord added that it would fully reimburse the resident for the cost of the lights if she provided a receipt for the lights.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman focuses on the events from 11 September 2022 onwards. Therefore, although this Service has reviewed some correspondence from the resident dating back to 2020 and 2021, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on events from September 2022 onwards.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of weeds in the alleyway

The landlord’s grounds maintenance standard specification states: “All surfaces including external bin stores, drying areas and flower and shrub beds will be kept free of weeds, litter, leaves and moss”.
The resident pays an annual service charge for the landlord to carry out an annual chemical weed treatment to the alleyway and hard surface car parking bays on the close. The charge was introduced in 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord on 11 September 2022 to report that there were weeds growing in the alleyway near her property. She advised the landlord that the weeds were supposed to be treated once a year. The resident then contacted the landlord on 26 September 2022 to make a complaint about various issues, including the weeds in the alleyway. On 1 October 2022, the grounds maintenance contractor advised the landlord that the alleyway had been cleared and sprayed for weeds. The landlord’s contractor had therefore responded in a reasonable timescale once the resident had raised her concerns about the weeds.
The landlord wrote to the resident with its stage one reply on 17 October 2022 and advised the resident that the grounds maintenance contractor had visited the area and was due to return during week commencing 24 October 2022 (the landlord’s records confirm that this follow-up visit took place). However, the landlord incorrectly stated in its reply that the area around the resident’s property was not included in the grounds maintenance contract. The landlord corrected this in its stage 2 reply on 10 November 2022 and confirmed that the grounds maintenance contractor should be attending to weeds and litter in the area. The landlord explained that it had been given incorrect information.
The landlord apologised for its error and offered the resident £35 compensation. It was inappropriate that the landlord had previously advised the resident that its contractor was not responsible for the area as the landlord was aware the resident was paying a service charge for weeding. It was therefore right that the landlord apologised for the error and offered compensation. The error had prompted the resident to write to the landlord on 17 October 2022 to correct the position and had therefore involved time and trouble for the resident. The amount offered was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for a goodwill payment in relation to a service failure caused by an administrative error.
It should not have needed the resident’s complaint about the lack of weeding for the landlord to act. However, the evidence shows that the landlord took steps to resolve the complaint once it became aware of the issue. Its contractor carried out the annual weed treatment in October 2022, the landlord apologised for the error it had made and it offered the resident compensation for her time and trouble. The steps taken by the landlord to resolve the dispute regarding the weeding were therefore reasonable in the Ombudsman’s opinion.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB by neighbours

On 11 September 2022, the resident reported various issues in relation to her neighbours, including litter, graffiti on one of the neighbour’s walls, overflowing bins and children causing problems on the street. The resident later added on 5 October 2022 that one of her neighbours had a punch bag hanging from a frame near the front door.
The landlord’s delay in responding to the resident’s emails and her online enquiry form are dealt with later in this assessment under the landlord’s complaints handling. However, in terms of the landlord’s actions, the landlord explained in its stage one reply that one of its staff had inspected the estate on 27 October 2022. During the visit the staff member had checked the various issues that the resident had reported. It was reasonable for the landlord to inspect the estate in response to the issues reported by the resident. This enabled the landlord to identify any potential breaches of its tenancy agreement, including any ASB.
As a result of the inspection, the landlord wrote to the 2 neighbours in question on the following day about the untidiness of the external areas, the punch bag, overflowing bins and chalk graffiti on the walls.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will assess the risk of harm in relation to types of ASB. It goes on to say that ‘environmental issues’, such as ASB affecting public spaces or buildings, attract the lowest priority. Having considered the landlord’s ASB policy and the incidents in question, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord’s decision to send a warning letter to the 2 neighbours was a proportionate and reasonable response in the circumstances.
The landlord advised the resident in its stage one reply that it would carry out a follow-up inspection. This was also a reasonable step because it would allow the landlord to check whether the neighbours had complied with the instructions in the warning letters.
The landlord carried out the follow-up inspection on 10 November 2022 and confirmed that the punch bag had been removed and the outside of the neighbour’s property looked much tidier.
It is not clear based on the evidence seen whether the neighbour had removed the chalk graffiti from her walls at the time the landlord sent its stage 2 reply. However, the landlord made it clear in its reply that the neighbour was responsible for removing the graffiti. The landlord stated that it was only responsible for removing graffiti in communal areas and this was the basis on which the graffiti removal service charge was calculated.
This Service has not seen any documents from the landlord confirming that it was only responsible for removing graffiti in communal areas. However, the Ombudsman’s view is that it was reasonable for the landlord to expect the neighbour to remove the graffiti rather than carrying out the work itself because:
1. The landlord had satisfied itself that the neighbour (or a member of her household) had written the graffiti on her walls and therefore it was reasonable to expect the neighbour to put things right by removing the graffiti.
2. The landlord had checked that the graffiti was not offensive; for example, it was not racist graffiti, which would have necessitated a more urgent approach.
The resident reported that children had been causing problems on the street. The landlord visited the area on 27 October 2022 and the landlord’s internal records show it concluded that some issues were inevitable because the close was very small and some families had young children. The resident’s complaint about children causing problems on the street was not specific and therefore the view of this Service is that the landlord had acted reasonably by visiting the area and considering whether any action was required in terms of this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
In terms of the communal fencing, the landlord raised a job to repair the damaged fence on 2 September 2022. The contractor attended the site to carry out repairs on 28 September 2022. The landlord had therefore attended within a reasonable timescale to carry out the repairs. However, the landlord took a decision to replace the wooden fence panels with concrete gravel boards. The landlord’s records stated that this created a larger job and therefore it did not complete the work until 27 October 2022.
As the landlord’s repairs log shows that it had previously carried out repairs to the fence due to vandalism, it was positive that the landlord had decided to replace the wooden panels with much stronger concrete boards. Given that the contractor required additional materials, it was reasonable that it needed longer to carry out the work and completed it on 27 October 2022. It was, however, a shortcoming that the landlord had not communicated the change of plans to the resident as she had previously been advised that the work would be done on 30 September 2022.
In her email dated 17 October 2022, the resident requested the landlord to escalate her complaint to an ASB multi-agency review. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to this request. The landlord’s ASB policy states that “All members of the public have the right to request that the local authority, local police force and the local clinical commissioning group conduct a review of the way in which an antisocial behaviour case has been handled”. The resident’s local authority website provides information on how residents can request an ASB case review (also referred to as the ‘community trigger’). The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 outlines the arrangements for ASB case reviews and identifies social housing providers as key partners in these reviews.
The local authority has information on its website about the threshold that must be met before an ASB review meeting would be arranged. The resident had specifically referred to a multi-agency case review as she was concerned that her complaints about ASB had not been resolved. It was therefore incumbent on the landlord to respond to her request and signpost her appropriately.
The Regulator for Social Housing’s Neighbourhood and Community Standard states that all registered providers must ensure that residents “…are kept informed about the status of their [ASB] case where responsibility rests with the organisation and are appropriately signposted were it does not”. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord had not signposted the resident to the local authority’s website or liaised directly with the local authority.
The evidence shows that the landlord had addressed the ASB issues reasonably by visiting the area and writing to the neighbours in question. Therefore, within this overall context, the view of this Service is that the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s request and its lack of signposting to the local authority amounted to a service failure in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord produced a risk assessment in relation to the resident’s reports of ASB. As stated in the Government’s ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 – Statutory Guidance for Frontline Professionals, it is good practice for agencies to assess the risk of harm to the victims, and any potential vulnerabilities, when they receive a complaint about anti-social behaviour. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order for the landlord to produce a victim-centred risk assessment in relation to the resident’s reports of ASB. The risk assessment should be used to produce an action plan identifying any further action required.
In terms of the damage to her garden lights, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord’s actions led to or contributed to the damage occurring. However, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s request for reimbursement for the cost of the lights. This was a inappropriate because the resident had made a request to the landlord and was therefore entitled to a response.
The landlord has provided this Service with evidence that it recently wrote to the resident to apologise for not previously addressing her request for reimbursement for the lights. It offered her £100 and stated that it would fully reimburse her for the cost of the lights if she provided a receipt.
It is positive that the landlord made an additional offer to acknowledge its failure to address the resident’s request for reimbursement. However, as the offer was made over year after this Service accepted the complaint for investigation, the Ombudsman is unable to consider the landlord’s offer as reasonable redress. Paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may determine the investigation of a complaint immediately if satisfied that [the landlord]… has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This will result in a finding of reasonable redress”.
The Ombudsman has therefore found that there was a service failure as the landlord did not address the resident’s request for reimbursement. However, this Service has not ordered additional compensation as the amount offered by the landlord is within the range recommended in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for service failures.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report about the contractor’s waste material that punctured her car tyres

The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 October 2022 and reported that 2 of her car tyres had been punctured by nails protruding from a fence panel. The resident explained that the fence panel and pieces of concrete had been left on her driveway by the landlord’s contractor after replacing the fence on 27 October 2022. On 1 November 2022, the resident submitted receipts to the landlord for the replacement tyres and tyre foam.
In its stage 2 reply, the landlord agreed to reimburse the resident to cover the cost of the replacement tyres and the foam. The landlord also offered the resident £50 for the inconvenience she had experienced as a result of replacing the tyres. The landlord had therefore accepted that its contractor should have cleared away any waste materials and it was therefore appropriate that it reimbursed the resident for her costs. It was also appropriate that the landlord offered her an additional sum to recognise the inconvenience she had experienced. The £50 offered was within the range of compensation shown in the landlord’s compensation policy for a service failure resulting in upset and inconvenience.
The landlord had therefore responded promptly to the resident’s request for compensation and the amount offered was in line with its compensation policy. The Ombudsman’s view is therefore that the landlord had offered reasonable redress to put right the service failure of its contractor leaving waste materials on the resident’s driveway.
The landlord has advised this Service that the contractor’s waste material was removed prior to it issuing its stage 2 reply. However, the resident replied to the landlord’s stage 2 letter and stated that the contractor’s waste material had not yet been collected. She also wrote to this Service on 17 November 2022 to report that the material was still in front of her property. Therefore, based on the evidence seen, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord took too long to remove the waste material. Although the resident did not report any further damage to her car, the waste material was unsightly and was still causing concern to the resident, as evidenced by her emails to this Service.
The Ombudsman has therefore found that there was a service failure because of the time taken to remove the discarded fence panels and the contractor’s debris. Additional compensation of £50 has been ordered by this Service to put things right in terms of the delay in the landlord removing the waste material.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord has a 2-stage formal complaints process. Stage one (formal investigation) complaints are resolved within 10 working days and stage 2 (formal review) complaints are resolved within 20 working days. If possible the landlord will aim to achieve an early resolution of a complaint without proceeding to stage one of its process.
The resident submitted an online enquiry form to the landlord on 11 September 2022. The landlord stated in its stage one complaint reply that the enquiry had been passed to its Tenancy Services Team and had not been treated as a formal complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy states that initial reports of issues such as ASB are not treated as complaints. Therefore, although the issues raised by the resident were not new issues, in the Ombudsman’s view it was reasonable for the landlord to treat the initial online form as a service request. The form did not, for example, refer to a previous service request that the resident had submitted about the same issues.
The landlord’s records show that the resident made further contact with the landlord on 13 September 2022 and the landlord logged a complaint on 26 September 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to log a complaint as it had been two weeks since the resident had made her service request on 11 September 2022 and the evidence seen shows that the landlord had failed to respond. The Ombudsman’s view, however, is that the landlord should have logged the complaint earlier as the resident had chased the landlord for a reply on 13 September 2022. The landlord’s stage one reply was sent on 17 October 2022, which was 23 working days after the resident chased the landlord for a reply on 13 September 2022. The landlord accepted in its stage one reply that there had been a delay in escalating the resident’s enquiry to a formal complaint, which resulted in a delay in replying. The landlord apologised for this and offered £35 compensation.
The landlord also accepted in its stage one reply that its communication had been poor since the resident’s initial service request on 11 September 2022. The landlord therefore also offered compensation of £35 for poor communication.
The compensation of £35 for the delay in escalating the complaint and £35 for the poor communication were in line with the landlord’s compensation policy to put things right where there had been a service failure due to delays or administrative error. As the period of delay in both cases was relatively short, the view of this Service is that the landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 October 2022 to express her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage one reply. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 10 November 2022, which was 18 working days after receiving the resident’s request to escalate her complaint. The landlord therefore replied in a timely manner within its advertised timescale of 20 working days for stage 2 complaints.
The landlord wrote to this Service on 16 August 2023 and stated that it had offered the resident additional compensation of £150 for its failure to log a formal complaint in January 2021. It was positive that the landlord had reviewed its previous actions and offered the resident additional financial redress to acknowledge that things had gone wrong. However, this Service has not investigated events prior to September 2022 for the reasons stated earlier in this assessment and therefore has not considered whether the additional £150 offered was reasonable. The Ombudsman would nevertheless expect the landlord to honour this offer.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the landlord had not removed weeds from the nearby alleyway and footpaths.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by neighbours, including fly tipping, overflowing rubbish bins, graffiti, damage to the resident’s garden lights and damaged communal fencing.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s report that the landlord’s contractor failed to clear away waste material which punctured her car tyres.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

The landlord apologised for its error in not carrying out weeding of the areas around the resident’s property and offered proportionate financial redress.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s request for an ASB case review nor signpost her to the local authority’s website so she could request the review. The landlord did not reply to the resident’s request for reimbursement for damage to her garden lights.
Although the landlord compensated the resident for the damage to her car tyres, there was then a delay in removing the waste material from in front of the resident’s property.
The landlord offered proportionate compensation for its lack of communication and the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of this report to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report and to provide her with information on how she can request an ASB case review if she still wishes to do so.
2. Produce a risk assessment in relation to the resident’s reports of ASB and use this to identify any follow-up action.
3. Pay the resident £100 for not responding to her request for an ASB case review.
4. Pay the resident the £100 the landlord offered in relation to the garden lights if this has not already been paid.
5. Pay the resident £50 for the delay in removing the contractor’s waste material from in front of the resident’s property.