Network Homes Limited (201916173)

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201916173

Network Homes Limited

23 December 2020

Our Approach

1. 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 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.
2. 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

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. response to the resident’s reports about damage to the bin storeroom shutter;
   2. response to the resident’s reports about rats in the building;
   3. response to the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbours;
   4. complaints handling, including its decision not to open multiple complaints and to limit communication with the resident.
4. The complaint is also about the local authority’s response to the resident’s reports about:
   1. antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbours;
   2. the landlord’s complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

5. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
6. Paragraph 25(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes as follows:

25. The following people can make complaints to the Ombudsman about members:

(a) a person who is or has been in a landlord/tenant relationship with a member landlord.

7. Additionally, paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes as follows:

39. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

(m) fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body;

8. The resident has advised this service that he has raised a complaint with the Community Safety and Enforcement Team at his local authority regarding their response to his reports about antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbours and the landlord’s complaints handling. The resident has provided copies of correspondence between himself and the local authority detailing his initial complaint and the local authority’s subsequent responses.
9. The resident does not have a landlord/tenant relationship with the local authority as the local authority is not acting in its capacity as a member landlord.
10. Additionally, complaints about the actions of local authorities fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The Ombudsman understands that the resident is already pursuing this complaint with the LGSCO, who are the appropriate complaint-handling body for this complaint.
11. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 25(a) and 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaints regarding the local authority’s response to the residents reports about antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbours and the landlord’s complaints handling are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background and Summary of events

Background

12. The resident has been an assured shorthold tenant at the property of the landlord since 16 September 2013. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
13. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy also notes the following:
    1. a complaint is defined as “a communication expressing dissatisfaction with the service provided by us and/or our service partners”;
    2. the policy does not apply to complaints about ASB, which is dealt with under a separate ASB policy;
    3. that the landlord will respond to all complaints within 2 working days.
14. The resident’s tenancy agreement notes that the landlord will keep in good repair the shared parts of the property and carry out its repairing obligations within a reasonable time from when it becomes aware of the need for repair.
15. The landlord operates a pests policy. The policy notes that where there is a pest infestation in a communal area, it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure the infestation is stopped.
16. The landlord also operates an ASB policy. The policy notes that “except in very serious cases, our initial intervention aims to stop the problem behaviour.” It further notes it will use approaches such as written and verbal warnings and will only use possession action as a last resort.

Summary of events

17. On 22 and 23 October 2019, the resident made a number of reports to the landlord about ASB in his building, specifically excessive music noise from Flat A, and loud domestic arguments occurring in Flat B which were continued in the communal corridors of the building at anti-social hours. On 7 November 2019, the resident emailed the landlord to make a formal complaint. He advised that the ASB was still continuing and that he had made requests for the landlord’s property manager to contact him but had not received a response.
18. The landlord provided its stage one response on 14 November 2019. The landlord apologised for its delay in responding to the resident and advised it had attempted to call Flat B to discuss the complaint on 24 October 2019, but there had been no answer. It had also knocked on their door on 28 October 2019, but there had been no one home. It advised that following its most recent conversation with the resident on 11 November 2019, it had spoken with the tenants at Flat B, who had “admitted to letting people into the building.” The landlord advised it gave the tenants a warning about this and about noise, and that it had been assured “this will not happen again.” It apologised to the resident for not keeping him informed of the action it had taken and advised it would be sending all tenants in the building a letter to remind them not to allow unknown persons into the building. It also advised it was liaising with the freeholder “to secure the rear door and investigate the bin shutters” and would update him accordingly.
19. On 26 November 2019, the resident noted to the landlord that he had previously reported to the landlord in August 2016 that intruders had been entering the building through “improper means” and that the landlord had subsequently written to the tenants to remind them not to allow access to unknown persons. The resident advised that it was not the tenants who were necessarily granting the intruders access, but that they were gaining access via the fire exit and bin area. The resident also advised that the metal shutter for the bin area “is still broken to this day.” The resident additionally reported that Flat B continued to cause ASB, and additionally that Flat A, C, and D were causing excessive noise at various hours during the day and night. He further advised that he was affected by a “degenerative health condition” which was “exasperated by the upset, stress and anxiety caused by these kinds of offensive, anti-social disturbances.”
20. The landlord replied to the resident on 5 December 2019 and advised it had spoken with the tenant at Flat A who had disputed that they played loud music at antisocial hours. The landlord advised the resident that “music can actually be played till 11pm” and that “If your neighbour continues to play music within these hours then there is not a lot that can be done as they are within Housing rules.” It subsequently requested that the resident contact it if Flat A played music in the “early morning or late nights after 9pm.”
21. The landlord has provided this service with its investigation notes regarding this complaint which indicate that on or around 10 December 2019, it spoke with tenants at other properties in the building regarding the ASB complaints. It noted that the other tenants confirmed instances of loud music but were unsure who was the cause. The other tenants also confirmed Flat B has previously had loud arguments “in the early hours.”
22. On 16 December 2019, the resident made further reports to the landlord of noise from Flat C and confirmed he had forwarded the reports to the police and to the local authority.
23. On 20 December 2019, the resident made two further formal complaints. He advised he was making both complaints in a single correspondence as the landlord’s staff had verbally indicated to him that it would be “harassment” to send multiple complaints. He requested that he receive an individual response to each complaint and that he did “not wish them to be treated as one joint complaint with two individual components.” He further requested that all further communications from the landlord be sent by mail only. He reiterated that he was a “vulnerable adult with a chronic health condition.” He noted he had been previously advised by the landlord that the tenants at Flats B, C, and D were rehoused due to their needs for emergency rehousing, and that he considered “the current anti-social tenants present a risk of violence and a risk to the health, safety and security of myself as a vulnerable tenant … so not only do I think that these tenants … should be evicted, I also believe it is irresponsible of [the landlord] to put innocent tenants … in serious risk of danger.”
24. In addition to the resident’s existing ASB complaint, he advised he wished to make a complaint against the landlord “for the rehousing of difficult and anti-social people within [the building].” He noted that he had provided the landlord with further video evidence of instances of ASB and gave additional reports of dates and times of further ASB. He also advised he wished to make a further complaint against the landlord for “deliberately obstructing and corrupting the statutory complaints process on several occasions.” He noted that the initial stage one response he had received focused on his previous reports of intruders in the building but did not address his more recent reports of ASB, which he wished to be addressed.
25. On 2 January 2020, the resident telephoned the landlord and reported that he had noticed rats in the roof space between his flat and the one above. The landlord responded on the same date and advised it had contacted its pest control team to address the issue. Between 4 and 15 January 2020, the resident also made further reports of noise ASB to the landlord.
26. The landlord provided a further stage one response on 22 January 2020. The landlord noted the resident’s request that he receive individual responses to each request but advised that “for practical reasons we will be combining all your issues within one composite investigation.” Regarding its decision to provide housing to the tenants, it advised that it was “required to accept nominations from [the local authority].” Regarding the ongoing ASB, the landlord advised it was taking action but that due to data protection, it could not share all the steps it had taken. It also advised it had “served notices on some residents” and that “there are some residents that are under investigation.” It further advised it would be raising the issues with the “highest levels” of the local authority. It noted that the resident wished it to take “more draconian action”, but advised that it need to “adhere to legislation and are unable to evict people without going through a court process and clearly need to evidence our case if we go to court.” It concluded that it was satisfied that appropriate action was being taken to address the ASB, and also advised that it did not treat reports of ASB as complaints under its complaints policy, but rather under its ASB policy.
27. On 20 February 2020, the resident requested that his complaints be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure, advising that the stage one response had “dismissed many parts of my complaint.” Between 21 February 2020 and 3 March 2020, the resident also made further reports of noise ASB to the landlord.
28. The landlord has advised it sent its stage two response by post on 20 March 2020. Regarding the ASB, the landlord reiterated that “although the constraints imposed on us means that I am not at liberty to go into detail, based on the information I have had access to, I am satisfied that that timely and proportionate actions were taken against a number of your neighbours in response to your reports and indeed continues to be taken.” It advised that it had undertaken door knocking exercises and it had spoken to the “alleged perpetrators” in person. It confirmed notices had been served and that it had met with the local authority to “review the next steps,” and that the local authority would now be conducting regular patrols around the building, in addition to its own regular checks. It further confirmed that it had “been successful in applying to the courts for one of the perpetrators to be evicted,” which would occur within “the next two weeks” pending any issues caused by COVID-19 restrictions. It concluded that it would also be continuing to keep the situation at the building “under close review.”
29. On 24 March 2020, the resident advised that the metal shutter to the bin area at the building remained broken, and further reiterated his concerns that this allowed easy access to intruders. He also advised that rats remained an issue at the property. On the same date, the resident made a further complaint through the landlord’s complaints portal regarding noise ASB.
30. On 26 March 2020, the resident made a further complaint the landlord’s complaints portal noting he was yet to receive the landlord’s stage two response. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 March 2020 and advised that he had attempted to make a complaint through the landlord’s complaints portal but had received an error message. He advised he wished to make two further complaints; that the landlord had not correctly recorded three of his reports of ASB on 17, 18, and 20 of March 2020, and secondly that the landlord had not provided him with “written information regarding the process, procedure and protocol once an anti-social noise complaint has been established through the receipt and acknowledgment of a noise nuisance dairy sheet.” The landlord advised on the same date that it had sent its stage two response by post, but also attached a digital copy for the resident’s convenience.
31. On 27 March 2020, the resident requested a further escalation of his complaint, noting he had been informed that the stage two response had been sent on 20 March 2020, but that “evidentially this was not the case and it was only sent yesterday as it is clearly ‘postmarked’ 26.03.2020.”
32. Additionally, on 27 March 2020, the landlord provided its stage one response regarding the metal shutter and rats in the building. It advised it had inspected the building on 11 March 2020 and raised a job for the shutter to be repaired, which was completed on 12 March 2020. It also advised a lock had been added to the shutter. It noted that while “this is currently fully functioning but appears to be left open” and advised it would remind the refuse collectors to keep it locked. Regarding the rats in the building, the landlord advised that it had repaired possible access holes in the building on 12 March 2020 and had also installed five bait boxes. It also advised it would send a reminder to tenants to keep bin lids closed.
33. On 1 April 2020, the resident advised he intended to make future correspondence by email. On 2 April 2020, the landlord replied and reiterated the steps it had taken regarding the resident’s reports of ASB. Regarding the delayed stage two response, it advised it was “sorry that it took longer than we would expect for you to receive it.” It also advised that it considered the resident’s new complaints to relate “directly to the stage 2 investigation,” and that “we will not be raising a new complaint in relation to this.” It further advised “your recourse now is to the Housing Ombudsman.”
34. The resident replied on the same date and disputed his complaints fell under the previous complaint. The resident also advised that “I have always legally referred to them as ‘complaints’ and never as ‘reports’. So therefore, under statutory law, [the landlord] is legally obligated to obey the law and my rights of complaint and investigate and resolve these ‘complaints’.”
35. The landlord provided a further stage one response on 7 April 2020. Regarding the resident’s complaint he had received an error message when attempting to submit a complaint, the landlord advised it was likely due to a file attachment being too large, but it confirmed it had successfully received the lodged complaint none the less. Regarding it failing to acknowledge three of the resident’s reports of ASB, the landlord confirmed it should have done so within two working days, in line with its complaints policy, but noted that due to the “considerable level of contact from you,” its staff had forwarded the reports internally to the complaints manager, leading to the delay in acknowledgement. The landlord subsequently apologised for the “oversight.”
36. On 15 April 2020, the landlord advised the resident that following his ongoing reports of ASB, it had now identified and removed trespassers living in Flat D. It further advised on 24 April 2020 that as it had not received any new complaints regarding Flat A, it was now closing that investigation.
37. The landlord provided its stage two response regarding the rats and bin shutter on 5 May 2020. Regarding the bin shutter, it advised it had provided the refuse collectors with a key to ensure they did not leave it unlocked. It further advised it would be sending letters to residents reminding them to keep it locked. It noted that the resident had advised there was still an issue with the shutter not working and that it had arranged for a further repair to the “padlock hook.” Regarding the rats, it confirmed that it had arranged for its pest control team to attend on a number of occasions, but that it would arrange for further “treatment.”
38. Between June 2020 and December 2020, the resident made multiple reports of ASB to the landlord and reiterated his complaint that the landlord was not treating his reports as complaints and accordingly providing a response under its complaints procedure. The landlord replied on a number of occasions that it considered the complaints to relate to the same issue it had previously issued a stage two response to and that it would not be opening a new complaint. The landlord noted it would continue to investigate the reports of ASB and, on 12 June 2020, it reiterated that ASB reports were not considered complaints under its complaints policy, instead being dealt with under its ASB policy.
39. On 27 November 2020, regarding the resident’s complaints about its complaints handling, the landlord advised him that “whilst we are awaiting the decision from The Housing Ombudsman Service … we will now only be passing your incident reports on and not responding to your emails, as our position has been made clear on more than one occasion that no new complaint will be raised.”
40. On 1 December 2020, the landlord advised the resident that “the volume of correspondence you have addressed to [the landlord] is excessive.” Regarding the resident’s ASB complaint against Flat C, the landlord advised that it had “no actionable evidence and therefore have been unable to take any action,” but that it would continue to “monitor and look at what further actions we can consider/take.” It further advised it had written to other tenants and spoken directly with tenants around Flat C, and that “nobody else has indicated that they have experienced the issues you have highlighted.” The landlord noted that Flat C had “agreed for a noise monitoring meter to be installed in their residence, however, we have yet to receive a response from you in relation to installing a noise monitoring meter in your home.” It advised that “this would be the best solution to determine if there is an issue that we can act on” and that it was “unable to consider any recordings you have provided as it would not be accepted in court as evidence.”
41. The landlord further advised that “the continued, excessive communication received by you … has the potential to negatively impact upon the service that we provide other residents … in taking up unnecessary time and resources.” It subsequently requested that all future communication from the resident be sent in one email every two weeks to one address at the landlord. It advised it would then respond within 10 working days. It further advised that “in event that you do not agree to or fail to adhere to this request, we will consider taking further action to manage the flow of contact from you.”
42. The resident responded on the same day and advised that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s request for him to limit his communication. He also disputed that he had been offered a “noise monitoring meter” and that the local authority had only suggested a “noise test.”

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damage to the bin storeroom shutter

43. The resident’s tenancy agreement requires the landlord to keep the communal areas of the building in good repair and carry out any repairs within a reasonable time. It is not evident when the resident initially reported an issue with the bin storeroom shutter to the landlord, however, in its initial stage one response dated 14 November 2019, the landlord advised it was liaising with the freeholder “to secure the rear door and investigate the bin shutters” and would update the resident accordingly. This service has not been provided with any evidence that the landlord subsequently followed this up with the resident, which would have been helpful for him to have understood what steps it had taken.
44. It is not evident from the evidence provided to this service when the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord regarding the bin storeroom shutter, however, the resident reported that it remained broken on 24 March 2020 and reiterated his concerns that this allowed easy access to intruders. The landlord subsequently provided a stage one response on 27 March 2020, where it advised it had inspected the storeroom on 11 March 2020 and subsequently arranged repairs on 12 March 2020, during which a lock was added to the shutter. It also advised it would instruct the refuse collectors to keep it locked. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s complaint and to address his ongoing concerns, which it appropriately articulated.
45. Following the resident’s report there was still an issue with the shutter not working, the landlord issued a stage two response on 5 May 2020. It advised it had noted a fault with the “padlock hook” and had arranged for a further repair. It also reiterated it had provided the refuse collectors with a key to ensure they did not leave it unlocked and that it would be sending letters to residents reminding them to keep it locked. The Ombudsman again considers that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and repair the bin storeroom shutter and took appropriate action to prevent it occurring again.
46. While it is not evident that the landlord followed up with the resident its discussions with the freeholder as advised in its initial response, the landlord took reasonable steps to repair the bin storeroom shutter in line with its obligations under the tenancy agreement, and appropriately addressed the resident’s concerns in its formal responses.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about rats in the building

47. The landlord’s pests policy requires it to ensure any infestation in a communal area is stopped. Following the resident’s reports on 2 January 2020 that he had noticed rats in the roof space between his flat and the one above, the landlord responded on the same date and advised it had contacted its pest control team to address the issue. The landlord has advised that rats remain an ongoing issue at the building and the Ombudsman considers that this was a reasonable response to the resident’s reports, in line with its pests policy.
48. Following the resident’s further report of rats on 24 March 2020, the landlord issued a stage one response on 27 March 2020, in which it advised it had repaired possible access holes in the building on 12 March 2020 and had also installed five bait boxes. It also advised it would send a reminder to tenants to keep bin lids closed. It addressed the issue again in its stage two response on 5 May 2020, where it confirmed it had arranged for its pest control team to attend on a number of occasions and that it would also arrange for further “treatment.”
49. The Ombudsman understands that rodent infestations can be an ongoing issue at properties due to factors beyond a landlord’s control. The landlord in this instance acted reasonably to address the issue following each report, in line with its pests policy, and appropriately took steps to address the issue reoccurring in future.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about ASB from his neighbours

50. Not every instance of noise reported to a landlord will be something it has the power to act on. A landlord has two main duties when ASB is reported. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the ASB. The second is to weigh in balance the evidence, and the respective parties’ rights to enjoy their home and decide what action it should take. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and whether the actions it took were within its powers.
51. Cases where there is a history of ASB over an extended period, such as this, are often the most challenging for a landlord to manage. In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case may not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome and it therefore becomes difficult to manage a resident’s expectations. In such instances, closely following the ASB procedure ensures that the landlord can progress the case to a resolution, even if that resolution is not the outcome requested by the resident.
52. It was appropriate that the landlord in its initial stage one response dated 14 November 2019 advised the steps it had taken to investigate the resident’s complaints regarding ASB, which is in line with its complaints policy. While the resident subsequently noted his most recent complaint did not relate to unauthorised persons entering the building, given that the resident had previously expressed concerns about this, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that the issue had come up in its investigation and to have advised him of the steps it had taken to address it.
53. Based on the case notes provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s further reports of excessive noise. Given that the resident made multiple reports of excessive noise occurring before 11pm, as well as after, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise that its approach was that noise prior to 11pm was not considered ASB.
54. Regarding the resident’s further complaint about ongoing ASB, the Ombudsman recognises the difficulty for a landlord to fully disclose the steps it has taken, given its data protection responsibilities. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident in its stage one response dated 22 January 2020 that it could not fully disclose all the steps it had taken. It was appropriate, however, for it to have advised that it had issued a notice to the tenants, and that its investigation would be ongoing alongside the local authority. It was also appropriate for the landlord to have managed the resident’s expectations by acknowledging that the resident’s preferred action but explaining that it was unable to do so in the first instance, as per its ASB policy.
55. Regarding the resident’s complaint against the landlord for rehousing the tenants alleged to be causing ASB, it was reasonable for the landlord to note that the local authority had discretion to allocate the tenants to it. The Housing Ombudsman Service can only consider issues relating to the landlord/tenant relationship between a resident and landlord, and the service it has provided to a resident. The allocation of properties by the local authority is outside of the landlord/tenant relationship. Generally, local authorities will allocate properties based on housing need and in accordance with its allocation policies and partner landlords.
56. The landlord’s stage two response appropriately set out the action it had taken and the processes it had put in place to address ongoing ASB. It also appropriately informed that it had been successful in achieving the resident’s preferred outcome of evicting one of the tenants it had investigated. Again, it was appropriate that the landlord advised it would continue to keep the situation at the building “under close review.”
57. Following its final response, given that the resident continued to report further instances of ASB, it was appropriate that the landlord continued to provide updates on the action it had taken, including its advice that trespassers had been evicted and that the tenant at Flat C had agreed to noise monitoring equipment. The Ombudsman notes that assessing evidence of excessive noise is difficult for landlords and that a resident’s personal video recording may not be sufficient. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to advise it could not solely rely on the recordings provided by the resident. The Ombudsman also notes that the resident disputes that he had been offered noise monitoring equipment, as referred to by the landlord. This service has not been provided with any evidence noting the resident had been offered this option and it would be helpful to the resident for the landlord to provide further advice on what this would involve.
58. The Ombudsman recognises that the resident has experienced distress as a result of the ongoing ASB, which the landlord has also acknowledged. However, the landlord has taken reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s reports, has appropriately advised where possible what steps it has taken, and has appropriately advised that it will continue to monitor the issue.

The landlord’s complaints handling, including its decision not to open multiple complaints and to limit communication with the resident

59. The resident initially reported instances of noise ASB on 22 and 23 October 2019, and later made a formal complaint on 7 November 2019 that he had not received a response from the landlord. While the landlord’s ASB policy does not give a timeframe for a formal acknowledgement, the Ombudsman considers it best practice to do so within a reasonable period. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord acknowledged its delay in responding in its initial stage one response dated 14 November 2019 and offered an apology.
60. While the resident’s reports that the landlord advised that it would be “harassment” to send multiple separate complaints are concerning, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to investigate and respond to multiple complaints at the same time in the interest of providing an efficient service. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord, having acknowledged the resident’s request, to have advised it was taking this approach in its stage one response dated 22 January 2020.
61. Given that the resident had requested that the landlord provide its responses by mail, it was appropriate that the landlord mailed its stage two response. While the resident has expressed concern that the mailed copy was eventually delivered to his property without a postmark, the Ombudsman notes that this was during the initial COVID-19 period of restrictions and that subsequent delay to the mail is outside of the landlord’s control. Following the resident’s advice that he had not received the mailed response it was reasonable for the landlord to subsequently send an electronic copy to avoid any further delay.
62. Regarding the resident’s repeated complaints about the landlord’s complaints handling, the Ombudsman notes that where the issues are ongoing, and the resident remains dissatisfied, the landlord must ensure that it continues to monitor the situation and takes appropriate action. The Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to repeatedly investigate the same issues where it has already made its position clear, but it should consider each report to ascertain whether a new approach may be necessary. Following its stage two response, it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to advise that the resident’s ongoing reports of ASB would be addressed under its ASB policy, as noted in its complaints policy, and that it would not be opening a new stage one complaint regarding its complaints handling. In addition to its advice in its stage two response, it was appropriate that the landlord continue to advise the resident could escalate its complaint to this service.
63. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has considered his reports of ASB to have been “complaints” and therefore requiring a formal response. The landlord’s complaints policy notes that it considers a complaint to be in relation to a service it has provided. It was therefore reasonable for it to not have treated the resident’s reports of ASB as complaints, and for it to subsequently investigate them in line with its ASB policy. This approach is in line with what the Ombudsman would expect in such situations.
64. The Ombudsman also understands that landlords have a finite amount of resources and that receiving and replying to excessive communications can limit the effectiveness of its service to all residents. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to request that the resident limit its further ASB reports and for it to advise it would only respond once every two weeks. It would however have been helpful for the resident to understand his option if the landlord had advised when it would review its decision to limit communication.

 

 

Determination (decision)

65. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding the landlord’s:
    1. response to the resident’s reports about damage to the bin storeroom shutter;
    2. response to the resident’s reports about rats in the building;
    3. response to the resident’s reports about ASB from his neighbours;
    4. complaints handling, including its decision not to open multiple complaints and to limit communication with the resident.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damage to the bin storeroom shutter

66. The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the bin storeroom shutter and made appropriate repairs. Following reports that the shutter remained damaged, it again took reasonable steps to repair the shutter, and to address the resident’s concerns it was being left open by advising the refuse collectors to keep it locked. The landlord also appropriately advised the resident of the steps it had taken in its formal responses, in line with its complaints policy.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about rats in the building

67. The landlord acted reasonably to address the issue following each report, in line with its pests policy, and appropriately took steps to address the issue reoccurring in future.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about ASB from his neighbours

68. The landlord made reasonable investigations into the resident’s reports of ASB and took appropriate steps to address the issue in line with its ASB policy, which, where possible, it conveyed to the resident in its responses.

The landlord’s complaints handling, including its decision not to open multiple complaints and to limit communication with the resident

69. The landlord appropriately apologised for its delay in advising the resident the steps it had taken to address his reports of ASB. It also appropriately took steps to provide the resident with a digital copy of its stage two response following his reports he had not received it in the post.
70. The landlord’s decision to respond to multiple complaints at once is reasonable in order to provide an efficient service and is in line with what the Ombudsman would expect. Additionally, where multiple complaints relate to the same subject matter, it was reasonable for the landlord to refuse to open additional complaints and to refer the resident to this Service. It was also reasonable for the landlord to advise that ongoing reports of ASB would be addressed under its ASB policy.
71. Given the frequency of the resident’s reports of ongoing ASB, it was reasonable for the landlord to request the resident limit its reports.

Recommendations

72. The landlord to write to the resident within four weeks of this determination to repeat its offer to install sound monitoring equipment at the resident’s property and to elaborate on what this would entail and how the evidence would be used.
73. The landlord to write to the resident within four weeks of this determination to advise when it will review its decision to restrict communication with the resident.