Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202017424)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017424

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

14 November 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Concern about its maintenance of the communal areas.
2. Reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).
3. Concern about the service she received from her housing officer.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, and lives in a 2 bedroom ground floor flat. The resident’s property has a communal garden that is shared with 5 other properties in the block. The landlord has reported the resident as vulnerable due to suffering from multiple health conditions and limited mobility, due to arthritis.
As part of her complaint, the resident raised a concern that she had been experiencing ASB from a neighbour that lived in the block. For clarity, this report will refer the resident’s neighbour as Mr D.
At the time the resident raised her complaint, the landlord had ‘customer contact agreement’ in place with her. This agreement limited the resident’s non emergency contact with the landlord to once per week.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 22 March 2021 and said, due to a burglary at her property, she was uncomfortable with people she did not know using the communal garden. She asked that the landlord speak to other residents and ask them to clear the communal garden of belongings after using it. The landlord responded the same day and said:
1. All residents of the block were entitled to use the communal garden
2. If the resident felt anyone using the communal garden was threatening her, she should contact the police. It was going to change the key to the communal entrance in April 2021
3. It asked the resident to send pictures of the trees, she had previously raised a concern about, as it wanted to get a tree surgeon to look into the matter
4. It would speak to other residents in the block to remind them not to leave possessions in the communal garden.
On 25 March 2021, the resident raised a concern that Mr D had damaged the wall in the communal hallway and sent the landlord some pictures. The resident followed up her email with a phone call and said that she had filled the holes in the wall and painted it, but that people kept damaging the wall was upsetting her. She also raised a concern that she felt “intimidated” by Mr D. The landlord responded on 26 March 2021 and said:
1. There was no evidence to support her claim that Mr D had caused the damage, and he had denied doing so
2. She did not need to repair holes, as it would inspect the block monthly to identify any repairs needed in communal areas
3. She should contact the police if she had concerns about intimidating or threatening behaviour from anyone at the block.
The landlord sent the resident a separate email on 26 March 2021 and said that it was receiving an “unreasonable amount of contact” from the resident. It explained it had received 9 call back requests and 6 emails between 16 and 26 March 2021. The landlord reminded the resident that communication should be limited to 1 contact per week, as per the agreement made with her in December 2020. The landlord stated that the “influx” of communication made it “impossible” to address all her concerns and everything should be put in 1 email per week.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 April 2021 and said:
1. She wanted to know why she still had restricted contact from the landlord
2. Other residents were leaving belongings in the communal area and she wanted them removed
3. The landlord should stop Mr D from using the communal garden as he was “very scary”.
The landlord responded on the same day and said:
1. It was reviewing its position in relation to restricted contact from the resident, but it had not yet made a decision, as the person responsible was on leave
2. It was visiting the block next week, and residents would be given 24 hours notice to remove any items in the communal garden, any items left would be disposed of
3. It had now installed “dummy CCTV” and changed the locks for the back communal door, and hoped this helped the resident feel safer at her property
4. Its role was to remain impartial when residents made claims about ASB. It was taking the resident’s concern seriously but it was “extremely difficult” to take action without evidence, or proof
5. It was going to contact the police to discuss her concerns about Mr D, as it was aware she had recently reported him to the police. It restated its advice to contact the police if anyone made her feel scared or concerned.
The resident raised a further concern about neighbours leaving items in the communal garden on 1 May 2021 and supplied photos of the items. The resident followed up with phone call on 10 May 2021. The landlord emailed the resident on the same day to confirm its conversation and what was agreed, which was:
1. It had received the emails detailing the resident’s concerns about the communal garden, but she needed to allow time for action to be taken after raising concerns
2. It was unable to visit the block daily or weekly and would attend to inspect once per month
3. It was awaiting contact from the police to discuss the harassment case against Mr D and would discuss what actions it could do to assist with the matter.
The landlord inspected the communal garden on 27 May 2021 and issued ‘TORT notices’ on the items that should not have been left there. The landlord inspected again on 25 June 2021, and sent the a letter to all residents on 5 July 2021, that said any items left in the garden would be removed on 9 July 2021.
The landlord received a voicemail from the resident about noise nuisance from Mr D, around 14 July 2021(the exact date is unclear). The landlord followed up with an email on 14 July 2021, and said the resident should log any disturbance on the diary sheets she was given. It advised she could contact the local authority ‘noise pollution team’ to raise her concerns, and provided details of how to do this.
The landlord completed a visit to inspect the communal garden on 23 July 2021, and sent the resident an email, to confirm the agreed actions from the visit, on 26 July 2021 and said:
1. It was would repair the fence broken by a ball, and would remind residents about ball games in the communal area
2. It was looking at getting a bike rack for the communal area, as residents were leaving bikes in the garden. This was to support keeping the area tidy, but it also understood that it was difficult for children to carry bikes up and down from their flats
3. It stated that its role was to help all residents use the communal garden according to their needs.
The landlord emailed the resident on 13 August 2021 and confirmed that it had completed a survey on the trees in the communal garden and would be completing works to the trees on 18 August 2021.
Following contact from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord on 13 August 2021 and asked it to outline its position in relation to the resident’s complaint. In an email on 24 August 2021, the landlord told this Service that it had received a “great number” of complaints from the resident. It had therefore decided to cover all the issues complained about in a single response. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident in early August 2021. The exact date it was issued is unclear, as the letter provided to this Service was undated. It is worth noting that the resident has not asked this Service to investigate all issues covered in the letter. As such, the summary below only covers the aspects of the resident’s complaint that she has asked this Service to investigate. The response said:
1. In dealing with the alleged incidents of ASB, it had investigated all the allegations that were made. It had interviewed other residents in the block and given everyone diary sheets to log any incidents. It had given advice to all the residents that they should report any criminal activity to the police
2. It had sent letters to all residents reminding them to respect each other and use the communal areas of the block in a respectful manner
3. It had asked the police to patrol the area more frequently due to the continuous reports of ASB
4. It understood the resident’s frustration about items being left in the communal areas, and ball games being played in the garden. But these incidents were not classed as ASB, and would be dealt with as a “neighbour dispute”
5. It could not “police” how residents used the communal garden. But it did regularly inspect the garden and had taken action to remove items. It said it was doing as much as it could to monitor the situation and manage her expectations
6. The resident had “rejected” its suggestion of installing a communal bike rack in the garden
7. The resident’s housing officer was “saddened” by the fact she felt she was not supported or receiving a good service. It was of the view that the housing officer had been supportive in relation to the neighbour disputes, but was limited in what they could do, and needed to take a realistic approach
8. It had arranged for a tree surgeon to do works she had reported
9. It appreciated the resident’s “frustration” that she had restricted contact, but it had explained on “many occasions” why it was necessary for the arrangement to remain in place. It advised that the number of calls and emails it had received was “unmanageable”, and asked the resident to adhere to the agreed contact arrangement
10. It was aware that the resident had told the Ombudsman she was unhappy with its handling of her complaints. It asked her to explain which aspects she was unhappy about, so it could resolve, and “if helpful” it could escalate her complaint to stage 2.
On 26 August 2021, the landlord sent an email to all residents in the block. It said it had done several visits recently and “despite being told” residents were still leaving items in the communal areas. It advised its email was a “final warning” and explained that items left in communal areas were a trip hazard and amounted to a breach of tenancy. It said it was looking into “alternative” storage at the block, but in the interim all residents must take their belongings into their properties.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 September 2021 and said:
1. She had been calling her housing officer for “3 weeks” and had not had a response
2. She was unhappy with the service she was receiving from her housing officer, and wanted a different one
3. She was unhappy that other residents were leaving items in the communal areas, and the landlord was not taking action.
The landlord emailed the resident on 14 September 2021 and reminded her that she was expected to put all non emergency contact in a weekly email. It said the amount of contact it was currently receiving was “unmanageable” and advised the resident to report any concerns about an immediate fear for her safety to the police.
The landlord completed a Japanese knotweed treatment on 15 September 2021. The notes from the visit indicate that knotweed was found in the communal garden “13 metres” from the dwellings.
Following further contact from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord on 4 October 2021 and explained that she was unhappy with its stage 1 complaint response. We asked it to take her complaint to stage 2 and issue a response within 20 working days.
The landlord emailed the resident on 11 October 2021 to follow up a phone call it had with her on the same day and said that it understood she had reported concerns that Mr D was “walking up and down outside her window non stop”, creating a noise disturbance and was spitting on the floor outsider her window. It said it was going to have a discussion about the issues reported.
The landlord wrote to all residents in the block on 14 October 2021 and said:
1. There had been a series of “serious incidents” where damage was caused to the communal areas. It was treating this as “criminal damage” and ASB
2. Residents were continuously leaving items in the communal corridors and garden
3. It had issued “many” warning letters about leaving items in communal areas and was now taking a “zero tolerance” approach, and would consider legal action if any further incidents occurred
4. It was going to install CCTV, and any footage of criminal behaviour would be shared with the police.
The landlord sent a further warning letter to all residents in the block on 18 October 2021 setting out the rules for the use of the communal garden.
The landlord referred the resident to its ‘floating support’ service due to the ongoing issues she was having with Mr D. The landlord emailed the resident on 3 November 2021 to follow up on the meeting she had with the floating support officer, and said:
1. The solutions it had identified were to install CCTV (which it was progressing with), and to refer the resident and Mr D to its mediation service
2. She had declined mediation, and it had asked her to “consider” it as an option
3. She had expressed a concern that if she had been “listened to” from the start she would not have experienced the “nuisance” from Mr D for as long. It explained that ASB cases of neighbour nuisance take a lot of evidence gathering and time to reach a conclusion
4. She would have a single point of contact for her ASB concerns going forward, and the resident would need to work closely with the officer involved to progress the case.
Following further contact from the resident, this Service emailed the landlord on 8 November 2021 and asked it to provide its stage 2 complaint response, as it had not yet done so. A deadline was given of 15 November 2021. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 15 November 2021 and said:
1. It had completed works to address issues with Japanese knotweed in the communal garden in September 2021
2. During 2021 it had regularly issued ‘TORT notices’ on items left in communal areas, inside and out, and had removed items that were not collected by residents
3. It had issued warning letters in July, August and September 2021, and issued a final warning to all residents in October 2021 about the issue
4. It had decided to bring forward its ‘cyclical work programme’ to decorate the communal areas, which it completed in August 2021
5. It was satisfied that its handling of maintenance of the communal areas was appropriate and items left in the communal areas would continue to be taken seriously
6. It had opened an ASB case, due to the concerns reported about Mr D. The landlord had given the resident diary sheets to complete, but not received any back
7. It had held a multi agency meeting with the police about the issues with Mr D. The police had decided to issue the resident and Mr D with community protection warning letters in October 2021 “due to the influx of calls that required no further action”
8. It had “very little” evidence of ASB and had concluded the issue with Mr D was “more of a neighbour dispute” rather than an ASB case. As such, it had offered both parties mediation, but the resident had refused. It “strongly” encouraged the resident to reconsider, as it felt mediation had been proved to improve neighbour relationships
9. It noted the resident’s request for Mr D to be evicted, but found had no evidence that meant he should be
10. The landlord had honoured the resident’s request to change housing officers and her new officer was appointed on 1 November 2021. It understood the resident was unhappy with this and felt she had been misunderstood in her requests to change. The landlord explained that it had made the change at the resident’s request, and the change would stand.
The resident contacted this Service on 3 May 2022 and asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint, as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.

Assessment and findings

Relevant obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord’s estate inspection policy states that it conducts monthly inspections, and any repairs and maintenance needed should be logged by its staff. The policy does not give timeframes for estates repairs. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to complete routine repairs within 20 working days.
The Government’s ‘Putting Victims First guidance states that reported incidents of ASB should be “risk assessed at the earliest opportunity” to ensure an appropriate response.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out how it responds to ASB reports. It states that upon receiving a report of ASB, it will contact the resident within 1 working day and offer to visit them within 5 working days. Its initial response is to investigate and monitor any risk. If a crime has been committed, it will advise the resident to contact the police.
The landlord’s ASB procedure document sets out in more detail how it will manage ASB reports:
1. If no serious or immediate risk of harm, then the tenant should be interviewed within five working days of the ASB report
2. After interview an action plan should be agreed, and a copy sent to the tenant
3. How the complaint is investigated will depend upon the nature and seriousness of the ASB, risk of harm to others and whether another agency such as the Police is leading. The Local Officer, working with the Local Manager, has the discretion to determine what action would be appropriate for the case
4. It should aim to meet with the alleged perpetrator within five working days and gather evidence
5. If there is evidence of ASB but not enough to take action, then continue to monitor for an agreed set time
6. Actions taken to tackle ASB should be proportionate to the seriousness of the case
7. Legal action should be avoided where other methods of intervention would be effective and possession proceedings should be considered as a last resort.
The landlord’s unacceptable customer behaviour policy defines unacceptable or abusive behaviour as being “any behaviour which has a significant negative effect on our ability to provide services” It gives examples such as, “continual phone calls or emails to staff members”. Actions used will be proportionate and take into account any disabilities or vulnerabilities of the customer, as appropriate. One of the measures the landlord uses to tackle unacceptable behaviour is through ‘customer contact agreements’. The policy states that the landlord will “monitor and evaluate” its approach to unacceptable customer behaviour.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge a resident’s complaint within 2 working days and send its stage 1 response within 10 working days. If a resident asks for a complaint to be taken to stage 2 the investigating manager will contact them within 2 working day to discuss the complaint. It will send its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days.

Concern about its maintenance of the communal areas

When the resident first raised a concern about the trees in the communal garden and other residents’ use of garden in March 2021, the landlord responded promptly. The landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations by explaining that all residents had a right to use the garden, but would remind them not to leave belongings in the garden. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances, as it is evidence the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously, and took proportionate action.
The landlord also took the resident’s concern about the trees seriously and advised it would seek advice from a tree surgeon. This was appropriate in the circumstances. Work to the trees were completed 5 months later in August 2021.During this time the matter did not impact on the resident’s ability to use the garden, and that it took 5 months to complete the tree work was reasonable in the circumstances.
It is evident that the reminder, about leaving belongings in the garden, did not resolve the issue. The landlord decided to issue ‘TORT notice’ to seek to address the matter. The landlord attended to remove the items in July 2021. The landlord’s approach was reasonable in the circumstances. Its initial approach was unsuccessful, the landlord therefore decided to take more forceful action. This is evidence that the landlord took the resident’s concern seriously and sought to escalate its actions to seek to resolve the issue.
The resident also expressed a specific concern about others leaving bikes in the communal area. The landlord took a balanced approach around this issue, as it understood the hazard bikes in the communal area could cause, but that residents had difficulty in taking the bikes to and from their properties. The landlord’s suggestion of a communal bike rack in the garden was reasonable in the circumstances. It is noted that the resident refused this as a suitable solution, it is unclear why she felt it would not resolve the issue.
The evidence available for this investigation suggests that the landlord continued to take the resident’s concern about belongings left in the communal areas of the block and garden seriously. The landlord also took the concern about damage to the communal areas seriously. The landlord issued all residents in the block a series of warning letters, which was reasonable in the circumstances. The letters sought manage the expectations by outlining the residents’ obligations under their tenancy agreements, but also outline how it was trying to create additional storage. This is evidence that the landlord not only took the matter seriously but was pragmatic in its understanding of the storage issues the residents were experiencing. The landlord issued a “final warning” letter to residents, as the matter persisted. This was reasonable in the circumstances, as it appropriately escalated the issue, as it was of the view that the residents use of the block was not improving.
The landlord completed a Japanese knotweed treatment in September 2021 and used its complaint response to outline its position in relation to the issue. This was reasonable in the circumstances, as it is evidence it took the resident’s concern seriously and used its complaint response to formally outline its position. From the evidence available, it does not appear that the resident raised the matter with the landlord again after the landlord’s complaint response of November 2021. If the resident still has concerns about Japanese knotweed in the communal garden, she may wish to raise this with the landlord so it can take appropriate action. The landlord informed this Service, on 25 October 2023, that it is continuing to monitor the situation, and its contractor most recently completed an inspection in May 2023, and did not find any Japanese knotweed. It advised that it will continue to monitor the situation for “several years” to ensure the knotweed is eradicated. The landlord’s approach was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord used it stage 2 complaint response, of November 2021, to outline its position in relation to its maintenance of the communal areas. The complaint response was detailed in what it had done, and what it planned to do going forward. This is evidence that the landlord took an open and transparent approach to its complaint response. It is noted that the resident disagreed with the landlord’s handling of the issues in the communal areas. However, the issue was evidently complex and, on balance, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord acted proportionately in managing the situation. It took care to address all the concerns raised by the resident, balanced with the needs of other residents in the block.
It is noted that the resident has continued to raise concerns about the landlord’s management of the communal areas, after she exhausted its internal complaints procedure. The resident’s concerns are noted. However, it is not within the remit of this Service to investigate the landlord’s handling of matter raised by the resident outside of its complaint procedure. In line with the Scheme, the landlord should be given the opportunity to response to concerns, as part of a complaint response,before this Service can investigate. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s management of the communal areas, she may wish to raise a complaint about its handling of the matter from November 2021 onwards.

Reports of ASB

It is evident that this situation was distressing for the resident. It is acknowledged that the resident does not believe that the landlord responded appropriately to her reports of ASB and noise disturbance. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring, or not. The Ombudsman’s role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations. This investigation has considered whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
When the resident raised a concern about Mr D’s behaviour in March 2021, the landlord advised the resident to contact the police if she was concerned about Mr D’s behaviour. This was appropriate advice, considering what the resident claimed she experienced. However, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord interviewed the resident, did a risk assessment, or issued an ASB action plan, in line with its policy and accepted best practice. This was a failing in its handling of the matter. Given the resident had made a serious, and specific, allegation about Mr D’s behaviour, a more supportive approach would have been appropriate. The landlord’s advice to contact the police, while appropriate, did not go further and give detail on what it would do to support the resident with the ASB case. This may have contributed to the resident’s concern that it was not taking her concerns about ASB seriously.
The landlord put the allegations, that he had caused damage to the communal areas, to Mr D. This was reasonable in the circumstances, and an appropriate application of its ASB procedure. The landlord had no evidence to act on, so was unable to take further action. That it put the resident’s concern to Mr D is evidence that it took that aspect of her concern seriously and took appropriate action.
It is evident that by April 2021, the concerns the resident was raising has escalated and she found the situation “very scary”. The landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectation by explaining it could only take action when it had evidence. The landlord also advised it was seeking advice from the police, which is evidence it was taking a multi agency approach, in line with its ASB policy. The landlord advised the resident that it needed evidence in order to take action, but it appears it did not issue an action plan around this time. It is noted that it explained to the resident what action it was taking, but the advice it needed evidence was cursory. If, in line with its ASB procedure, it had issued the resident with an action plan it could have outlined what she could do to collect evidence. It could also have formally outlined the actions it planned to take. That it did not do so at this time, was a further failing in its handling of the matter and caused the resident an inconvenience.
When the resident reported that she was experiencing noise disturbance from Mr D, in July 2021, the landlord signposted the resident to the relevant team at the local authority. It also asked her to complete diary sheets. This was reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord sought to support the resident in collating evidence about the issues, and advised how she could get external help. The landlord, appropriately, sought to manage the resident’s expectations about the need for evidence and explained how to progress the matter. This Service has seen no evidence to suggest that the resident reported her concerns about noise disturbance to the local authority.
When the resident reported she was experiencing ASB from Mr D in October 2021, the landlord did a referral to its internal floating support service. This was reasonable in the circumstances and evidence that the landlord sought to take a supportive approach with the resident.
The floating support officer emailed the resident, in October 2021, outlining their view of the case, and the actions the landlord planned to take (install CCTV). The landlord also advised that it was of the view that mediation was the most appropriate way to seek to resolve the issues between the resident and Mr D. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances as the landlord clearly outlined its position and sought to manage the resident’s expectations about the action it deemed appropriate. It is noted that the resident declined mediation, that the landlord kept the offer open was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response sought to manage the resident’s expectations around ASB and explained it had determined that it had assessed the issues with Mr D as a neighbour dispute, rather than ASB. The landlord restated its offer of mediation, and asked the resident to reconsider, which was reasonable in the circumstances, and a supportive approach. The landlord clearly outlined its position that there was insufficient evidence to progress with an ASB case, or evict Mr D, which sought to manage the resident’s expectations. This may have been disappointing for the resident, but it explained its reasons for its decision clearly, in line with its ASB policy, and was a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
In accordance with the landlord’s ASB procedure, when the landlord receives reports of ASB it should gather evidence. For a landlord to take formal action in respect of ASB, it requires evidence of the alleged behaviour to support formal action. In this case, it was evident that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and seek evidence in line with its obligations. However, its initial approach to the resident’s concerns was cursory, and it failed to send the resident an agreed action plan, in line with its ASB policy. As such, a series of orders have been made below.

Concern about the service received from housing officer

As part of her complaint, the resident raised a concern about the service she received from her housing officer. The resident’s concerns centred around the landlord’s decision to restrict her contact, and her request for a new housing officer.
The landlord’s email of 26 March 2021, set out its position that it was receiving an “unreasonable amount of contact”. The landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations about the level of service it could provide, which was reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord set out its expectations clearly, and stated the resident had agreed to the restricted contact arrangement. This was reasonable in the circumstances and an appropriate application of its ‘unacceptable customer behaviour policy.’
The landlord’s email of 29 April 2021 lacked clarity. The resident had asked why the landlord still had restricted contact in place for her. The landlord explained it was reviewing its position, which was a reasonable application of its policy. However, the email did not set out when it would inform her of its decision, which was unreasonable. The result was an inconvenience for the resident, as she was unsure of when she would get a response to a specific query she had raised. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord explained the outcome of the review around this time, which was a further failing. It is evident that the restricted contact arrangement remained in place.
The resident raised a concern in May 2021, that the landlord was not responding to various concerns she had raised. The landlord’s email of 10 May 2021 sought to manage the resident’s expectations about how quickly it could respond to matters raised. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances, as it sought to outline it position, while seeking to reassure the resident it was taking her concerns seriously.
It is evident that the restricted contact arrangement remained in place in September 2021, as explained in the landlord’s email of 14 September 2021. In line with its policy, the landlord set out that the amount of correspondence it was receiving was “unmanageable”. This comment may have been disappointing for the resident, but the landlord did seek to take a supportive approach. It explained that it could still deal with emergencies she raised, while responding to non urgent matters in line with the arrangement. It also gave advice about reporting safety concerns to the police. The landlord’s approach sought to clearly outline its expectation about contact, in line with its policy. It also sought to reassure the resident that it would deal with emergency situations with the appropriate urgency.
The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response to clearly outline its position in relation to the service the resident’s housing officer had provided. It gave a detailed explanation of the actions it had taken, and that it was of the view she had received an appropriate level of service. It is noted that the resident did not agree with this assessment, but the level of detailed analysis of its actions demonstrates the landlord took her concerns seriously. The landlord conducted a meaningful and reflective analysis of its actions, in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint, and drew appropriate conclusions based on the evidence it had.
The landlord also used its stage 1 complaint response to further manage the resident’s expectations about the restricted contact arrangement. This was reasonable in the circumstances, as it acted with clarity about the matter. That it did not explain that the matter would be kept under review, was a shortcoming. Its policy states that it will “monitor and evaluate” such matters. It would therefore have been reasonable for it to have explained this to the resident, and stated when it would evaluate its decision.
Throughout 2021, the landlord continued to manage the resident’s expectations about the amount of contact it was receiving from the resident. The evidence available indicates that the landlord provided regular updates to the resident that sought to capture all of the issues she had raised. This was appropriate in the circumstances, as it correctly applied its policy. It also continued to provide the resident with an appropriate level of service that sought to address all of the concerns she had raised.
The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response, of November 2021, to explain its position in relation to the resident’s request for a new housing officer. It explained that it had agreed to the resident’s request. Given the resident had made numerous requests for it to do so, and raised a concern about the service she was receiving, it is unclear the reasons why she was unhappy with its decision. The landlord used its complaint response to set out its decision clearly, that it had agreed to the resident’s request, and was not prepared to change her housing officer again. It is acknowledged that this may have been disappointing for the resident. However, the landlord’s complaint response was clear, outlined the reasons for its decision, and appropriately sought to manage the resident’s expectations.
The landlord used its complaint responses to outline its position: that its housing officer had provided an appropriate level of service to the resident. This was reasonable and transparent. The landlord correctly applied its unacceptable customer behaviour policy, when deciding to restrict contact from the resident. However, its communication about how and when it would review the decision lacked clarity and was confusing for the resident and did not explain the outcome of such a review, in April 2021. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the matter.

Complaint handling

It is evident that the landlord received a large amount of correspondence from the resident and raised several complaints. Having a large volume of complaint communications from the resident may have contributed to the difficulties in the landlord’s complaint handing. That the landlord decided to respond to the matters raised by the resident as 1 complaint was reasonable in the circumstances. If the landlord had responded to all of the complaints raised separately, this unnecessarily prolonged the process.
Though its decision to open 1 complaint was reasonable, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord sent the resident an acknowledgment about the investigation opened in August 2021. This was a failure to adhere to its complaints policy, and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code states that, as part of a complaint acknowledgment, the landlord should outline its understanding of the complaint. That it did not do this is a failing considering the circumstances of this case. The landlord had decided to deal with all of the complaint correspondence as 1 complaint. Given the amount of correspondence and multiple issues raised, that it denied the resident an opportunity to give her view on its understanding of her complaint was unreasonable. The resident suffered an inconvenience of not being able to respond to the landlord’s understanding or her complaint, and not knowing when it would respond.
The landlord’s record keeping around the complaint was poor.It is noted that this was made challenging by the volume of correspondence from the resident.However, that the stage 1 complaint response it sent to this Service was undated, supports the view that its complaint record keeping was poor. It is noted that it did send a copy of this letter dated 18 October 2021, but an exact copy of that letter, that was undated, was sent to this Service in August 2021. It is unclear when the response was issued. That it did not provide this resident with a dated complaint response, ora formal complaint acknowledgement, is a failing in its record keeping in relation the complaint.
The landlord’s stage 1 response, of August 2021, explained that if the resident was unhappy with its response, she should explain the outcome she wanted and “if helpful” it would open a stage 2 complaint. This was inappropriate. The Code states that if a complaint is not resolved the resident’s satisfaction, then it “must” be progressed to stage 2. The landlord’s comments suggest that a stage 2 complaint would only be opened if “helpful”. It is unclear what it meant by this comment, but its approach was not in line with the complaint handling principles set out in the Code. This was a further failing in its complaint handling and created a hard to access complaint process for the resident.
The landlord did not immediately open a stage 2 complaint investigation, when contacted by this Service on 4 October 2021. This was a further failing in its complaint handling, and further supports the conclusion that its complaint process was hard to access. The landlord did not open a stage 2 investigation until this Service asked it to a second time. This cost the resident further time and trouble in needing to seek assistance to get a complaint response.
Following contact from this Service, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint acknowledgement. This was a further failing in its complaint handling, which caused an inconvenience to the resident, as she was left not knowing if, or when, it would respond to the stage 2 complaint.
The landlord sent the stage 2 complaint response on 15 November 2021, which was 30 working days after this Service asked it to. This was 10 working days later than set out in its policy and the Code, and a further failing in its complaint handling. It is noted that this was not an excessive delay. However, the resident had already experienced a difficulty in escalating her complaint, the further delay contributed to the overall difficulty she had in getting the landlord to respond. That the landlord did not acknowledge, or apologise, for the delay was a further failing in its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern about its maintenance of the communal areas.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern about the service she received from her housing officer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s concerns and completed works to the communal areas, in line with its responsibilities. The issue of the treatment of the communal areas was a complex one, which the landlord took seriously. The landlord issued a series of warnings, which progressed in seriousness. Its final warning advised it would seek to take legal action, which was appropriate. The landlord took a balanced approach while seeking to address the resident’s concerns and supporting other residents in the block.
In the ASB case, it was evident that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and seek evidence in line with its obligations. The landlord sought advice from the police and took a multi agency approach. It, appropriately, advised the resident how to report noise disturbance to the local authority. However, its initial approach to the resident’s concerns was cursory, and it failed to send the resident an agreed action plan, despite multiple reports of incidents, in line with its ASB policy. The landlord also failed to complete a risk assessment, in line with accepted best practice.
The landlord used its complaint responses to outline its position about the level of service provided, which was reasonable. The landlord correctly applied its unacceptable customer behaviour policy, when deciding to restrict contact from the resident. However, its communication about how and when it would review the decision lacked clarity and was confusing for the resident.
The landlord received a large amount of correspondence from the resident, which may have contributed to the difficulties in the landlord’s complaint handing. The decision to respond as 1 complaint was reasonable and sought to provide clarity to the resident. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint or explain its reasons for dealing with it as 1 complaint, which was unreasonable. The complaint record keeping was poor and it is unclear when it sent its stage 1 response. The landlord’s comments about complaint escalation were inappropriate, and created a hard to access process. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response 10 working days later than set out in its policy and failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delay.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report
2. Pay the resident £575 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB
  2. £75 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about the service received from her housing officer
  3. £300 in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint
3. Meet with the resident to discuss her concerns about ASB from Mr D. If she reports she is still experiencing issues, it should to an ASB ‘action plan’, in line with its procedure, and a risk assessment in line with best practice
4. Write to the resident to outline when it plans to review the restricted contact arrangement (if it remains in place).

Recommendations

The landlord may wish to update its ‘unacceptable customer behaviour policy’ to set out how often it will review restricted contact arrangements. This may help to provide clarity to residents.