Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202207000)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207000

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

30 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 handling of:
1. a water pipe repair;
2. a repair to the resident’s bedroom window;
3. the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance by a neighbour;
4. the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord which commenced in 2003. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat in a converted 3-storey building containing 3 flats. The resident’s property is the only flat in the building with access to a private rear garden. The other 2 flats share a communal front door.
The resident is in her 70s and has a number of health conditions known to the landlord, including a heart condition and arthritis. Throughout the events of this investigation, which took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, she was deemed clinically vulnerable and was shielding.
The resident’s daughter and carer has acted as her representative in her dealings with the landlord and this Service. For the purposes of this report, both are referred to as ‘the resident’.
The tenancy agreement sets out the responsibilities of the landlord and tenant. The landlord’s responsibilities include keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the property, including external pipes and installations for the supply of water. The tenant’s responsibilities include: keeping any shared communal areas clean, tidy and free from obstruction; maintaining any garden or yard in a clean and tidy condition; not committing any acts which cause a nuisance, disturbance or harassment to any person; not using or threatening violence; and allowing the landlord to enter, inspect and repair the property (with reasonable notice).
The landlord’s repairs policy categorises repairs as either emergency or routine. It aims to attend emergency repairs within 4 hours and to have all major services restored within 24 hours. It will complete routine repairs within 20 working days. The repairs policy states that the landlord aims to complete repairs on the first visit and monitors its performance against this measure. Where additional works are required, it has procedures in place to ensure the repair is completed within its target timescales and to the resident’s satisfaction. The Ombudsman has not been made aware of any changes or adjustments to the landlord’s repairs policy that were in effect during the COVID-19 pandemic, or of any COVID-19 specific policy or guidance.
The landlord’s ASB policy adopts the definition of ASB used by the ASB, Crime & Policing Act 2014: “Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person; conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises; or conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.” The policy states that, when the landlord receives a report of ASB, it will contact the reporting party within 1 working day and offer to visit them within 5 working days. Its initial response is to investigate and monitor any risk, and, if a crime has been committed, it will advise the reporting party to contact the police. In assessing the seriousness of ASB, it considers the nature of the reported behaviour, the frequency of incidents, and the impact on the reporting party and wider community. It will then develop an action plan with the reporting party, choosing from a toolkit of actions designed to stop the problem behaviour such as mediation, warnings, and acceptable behaviour contracts (ABCs). It will also offer support to vulnerable perpetrators.
Between 29 January 2021 and 18 March 2022, statements relating to the COVID-19 pandemic were added to the landlord’s ASB policy. These related to adjustments to the landlord’s approach in dealing with ASB under the government guidance that was in force at the time. The statements included: “Depending on the latest guidance and/or regulation we might not offer to visit the complainant, but offer to discuss the matter with them in detail over the phone within 5 working days”; “Tools such as mediation, or using independent witnesses, may have to be withdrawn [or used in a different way]”; and “During the pandemic, staff are being instructed to carry out essential home visits only. As such, face-to-face meetings to discuss ASB will not be offered and our investigation processes may also be impaired by being unable to be physically present on site.”
The landlord’s ASB procedure notes that, while hate crime and harassment are types of ASB, its hate incidents and hate crime policy/procedure should be followed in such situations. It also notes that “ASB does not generally include low-level neighbour disputes where there is no tenancy breach, for example … disagreements about lifestyle”. The version of the procedure in effect at the time of the resident’s complaint (version 1.2) refers to COVID-19 specific ASB, including the hosting of unnecessary gatherings, the intentional spreading of germs, and improper disposal of hazardous waste. The ASB procedure provides guidance to staff dealing with reports of ASB, and covers areas including prevention (for instance, by monitoring ‘at-risk’ tenants such as those who are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19), record keeping, initial contact, risk assessment, interviews, collaborative working, security measures, and investigation. Evidence that the landlord can use when investigating ASB includes CCTV footage, photos, witness reports, incident diaries, and audio recordings/noise tests.
The landlord’s hate incidents and hate crime policy defines a hate incident as “an incidence of ASB that is perceived by the victim to be motivated by prejudice”. This includes ASB targeted at an individual because of protected characteristics such as age or disability. The policy states that the landlord will respond to all reports of hate-related incidents within 1 working day, and take a victim-centred approach. It will provide support by offering referrals to external agencies such as health and victim support services.
The landlord’s domestic noise and neighbourhood disputes policy distinguishes between neighbour disputes (“a conflict between neighbours where there has been no breach of occupancy agreement”) and domestic noise (“noise caused by everyday, daytime household activities” such as banging doors). The policy states that the landlord considers “instances where the noise is too loud or amplified” to be noise nuisance rather than domestic noise, and will deal with such matters as ASB.
The landlord’s complaints and compliments policy refers to ‘quick fixes’, which it defines as “complaints which can be resolved quickly, usually within 48 hours, and without the need for a formal response”. Where a complaint is not identified as a ‘quick fix’, the landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1, it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days and respond within 10 working days. At stage 2, a manager who was not involved in the stage 1 decision will carry out a review within 20 working days. At least 1 other independent manager from another part of the organisation will also review the stage 2 complaint, and residents have the option to have their stage 2 complaint reviewed by an independent reviewer from a pool of residents. There are some things the landlord will not treat as complaints, including a first request for a service, and reported cases of neighbour disputes, ASB, or hate crime (unless the complainant is complaining about how it has handled their reports).
The landlord’s compensation and goodwill gestures policy distinguishes between ‘compensation’ (“a financial payment to make amends or to recognise distress or inconvenience caused because of a service failure”) and a ‘goodwill gesture’ (“a discretionary financial or other gesture given to recognise a shortcoming in the way we have delivered our service”). The policy states that the landlord will compensate residents fairly, proportionately, and appropriately where it has failed to meet its service standards. Where residents experience distress and inconvenience following a service failure, it will make a “discretionary payment” of up to £250 depending on the level of impact. In circumstances where there have been multiple failures, or the resident has experienced exceptional hardship, it may offer higher levels of compensation.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records state that the property containing the resident’s flat has been affected by leaks since 2020, and that the resident reported a leak to be impacting her rear garden in January 2021. A repair appointment in January 2021 was missed by the landlord’s contractor.
On 18 May 2021 the landlord raised a repair relating to a leaking overflow pipe at the property, which was causing damage to the brickwork and excess water in the rear garden. The repair was assigned to the landlord’s contractor, which later cancelled the job on 8 June 2021 as the resident did not want operatives to enter her flat in order to access the leaking pipe at the rear of the property.
On 18 June 2021 the landlord discussed an alternative means of access to the garden area with the resident over the phone. It followed up this conversation with an email in which it requested photos of the proposed access route and the pipe requiring repair. The resident provided these on 21 June 2021, and highlighted her concerns about multiple contractors entering her property during the COVID-19 pandemic. She also referred to compensation she believed she was due for the missed appointment in January 2021, and to steel burglar bars on her bedroom window which she said were a fire hazard.
The landlord’s contractor then scheduled an appointment to repair the overflow pipe on 7 July 2021. On 30 June 2021 the resident sent the landlord a list of measures that she wished the contractor to take in order to minimise the risk of COVID-19 infection. These included wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) and disinfecting tools. If 2 operatives attended, she additionally requested that they were fully vaccinated and could provide proof of a negative lateral flow test. On 5 July 2021 the landlord advised that its contractors were working in line with government guidelines and advice from Public Health England, which comprised wearing of face masks and keeping 2 metres’ distance from residents (with residents ideally being in another room). It said it was unable to make any exceptions to this. The resident was not happy with these measures and cancelled the appointment. She asked the landlord to consider accessing the rear of the property via the middle flat (‘Property A’) or top floor flat (‘Property B’).
On 12 July 2021 the resident emailed the landlord, referring to a phone conversation the previous week in which the landlord clarified “the plan for dealing with this repair in the safest way possible”. She noted that the landlord’s contractor had attended the property for a rescheduled appointment on 9 July 2021, which she had previously cancelled. On 16 July 2021 the landlord replied that it had cancelled the appointment at 4.48pm on 8 July 2021, which may have been too late for the contractor to be aware of the cancellation the following morning. It apologised for any inconvenience caused and said it would confirm the deadline for a cancelled or rescheduled appointment in future.
The landlord repeated that its contractor would not make exceptions to the COVID-19 measures it was following, but in view of the resident’s concerns, it had explored the possibility of an operative abseiling from the flats above in order to access the pipe without entering the resident’s property. Unfortunately Neighbour A and the resident of Property B (‘Neighbour B’) declined to give their consent for this due to similar health related concerns and restricted access. It asked if the resident was prepared to isolate herself in a room while contractors walked through the hallway of the property, using foot coverings and avoiding any contact with furniture and décor. In relation to compensation that may be due, it advised that it was waiting for the case to be closed before it confirmed the missed appointment in January 2021 with its contractor. In relation to the steel bars in the resident’s bedroom, which the resident wanted it to remove, it asked whether the bars were already fitted when her tenancy commenced, and if not, when they were installed, and whether this was a tenant or landlord request. The Ombudsman has not seen any reply to this by the resident.
The overflow pipe repair remained outstanding in October 2021. In that month, the resident’s upstairs neighbour who lived in Property A (‘Neighbour A’) reportedly began playing loud music from 7am, slamming their front door, and treading heavily on the stairs and inside their flat. This caused annoyance and distress to the resident, who was concerned that sudden loud noises could cause her to have a heart attack.
During the week beginning 8 November 2021, the resident found that the rubbish bin used by all 3 flats in the building began to be placed under her bedroom window, together with loose rubbish bags. She believed Neighbour A was responsible for moving the bin and bags. On 14 November 2021 she sent Neighbour A a message politely asking them to leave the bin in its usual place, which was in the left corner of the wall facing Property A and Property B’s shared door. She received no response.
On 17 November 2021 there was a confrontation between the resident and Neighbour A, after the resident saw Neighbour A move the bin and moved it back. Neighbour A reportedly told the resident it was them who had been moving the bin, and said they would continue to do so until the resident gave the landlord’s contractor access to repair the leaking pipe. The resident explained her concerns about COVID-19 and suggested that Neighbour A granted the contractor access through their property. They did not address this suggestion but discussed other matters, such as overhearing arguments between the resident and members of her family, which they threatened to record. They repeated that they would continue to move the bin.
The resident documented further incidents of the bin and rubbish being moved during the week of 14 November 2021, and on 21, 26 and 30 November 2021. On 1 December 2021 the resident contacted the landlord about the issues. Her email contained photos taken in November 2021 and a chronology of events, and was titled “harassment complaint”. It stated:
1. She wanted to make a complaint regarding “harassment, threatening behaviour and spiteful treatment” from her upstairs neighbour, which had been going on for over a month.
2. She had lived in the building for over 17 years. She was a peaceful woman who had always been friendly with her neighbours and avoided any trouble.
3. She was 73 years old and vulnerable. She had many health conditions and took 15 medicines twice a day.
4. During the COVID-19 pandemic she had been required to isolate/quarantine for 2 years. Her daughter had taken her grandchild out of school in order to reduce the risk of infection.
5. She had previously communicated with the landlord in the summer of 2021 regarding alternative access routes to fix a water leak. However, no solution could be found at the time. She felt the best option was for the landlord to ask the residents of Property A and Property B for access, but it said they refused.
6. Neighbour A had continued to insist that the issue was fixed as soon as possible, and had “taken matters into [their] own hands” by behaving in a way that she found “hostile, vindictive and unacceptable”.
7. She enclosed a list of recent events.
8. She requested a prompt response as she wished to avoid any issues over the Christmas period.
On 2 December 2021 the resident forwarded her email to a different officer after receiving an automated response from her housing officer. She continued to document incidents involving Neighbour A between 3 and 10 December 2021. Having received no response from the landlord, she emailed it again on 9 December 2021, asking “why have I still not received a response or acknowledgement even”. She noted that, according to the landlord’s policies, she should have received a response and resolution by now. She quoted the landlord’s ASB policy, which stated that “on receiving a report of ASB, we contact the complainant within 1 working day and offer to visit them within 5 working days”. She also highlighted that she was elderly and vulnerable.
The resident contacted the landlord by phone on 10, 14 and 16 December 2021 and reported the ongoing issues to its customer services team. Between 10 and 19 December 2021 she documented further incidents of Neighbour A banging on her ceiling from 5.20am, “thumping” up and down the stairs, sending abusive messages, intimidating her with a broomstick, pushing rubbish towards her window, walking in front of her, and slamming their door. On 14 December 2021 the landlord said it would arrange a meeting with the resident and a manager between 16 and 21 December 2021, but it did not do so. On 17 December 2021 it advised her to contact the police about the ASB and to provide any photo/audio evidence. It said it would seek legal advice the following week.
On 20 December 2021 the resident sent the landlord a link to a shared folder in which she had saved evidence of Neighbour A’s behaviour, including photos, footage, and a summary of events. She said she was disappointed in the landlord’s communication, noting that following her complaint sent on 1 December 2021, she received an initial phone call 2 weeks later and contact from her housing officer 2.5 weeks later. She thanked the landlord for its apology regarding this on 17 December 2021, but pointed out that it was now 3 weeks since she had complained and she had been living in fear for 2.5 months. She said the landlord had promised a meeting on 14 December 2021, but on 17 December 2021 it told her no face-to-face meetings were happening and the housing officer’s manager was in isolation with nobody covering their role. She said the thumping by Neighbour A was happening 2-3 times every hour. She told the landlord she was not prepared to call the police yet, and questioned why the evidence she had provided was not enough for it to be able to write to Neighbour A. She said it had a duty to ensure tenants feel safe within their homes.
Following an incident of wrappers being thrown into the resident’s garden on 22 December 2021, the landlord emailed the resident on 23 December 2021. It apologised for its delayed response, citing resourcing issues due to the COVID-19 pandemic and festive period. It confirmed that it had reviewed the resident’s evidence and sought advice from management and its legal team. It advised the resident to report threatening or intimidating behaviour to the police, and noise to environmental health. It also noted that it “would usually contact the tenant who is causing the noise to see if they are aware of the impact they are having, with the aim of reducing the frequency and severity of the instances”, but that when it discussed this with the resident the previous week she said she “would prefer to avoid this route as [she was] concerned it may escalate the situation further”. It asked her to confirm if this was still the case.
The landlord also addressed the bin issues and pipe repair in its email of 23 December 2021. It thanked the resident of sending photos showing the bin under her living room window, but advised that there was no clear evidence of how the bin was moved to that location. It also said it was unable to identify a designated area for rubbish to be left. It told the resident it would visit the property in the new year to arrange for an area to be assigned and marked for rubbish to be left for collection, and follow this up in writing to all involved residents. In addition, it said it would explore ordering 2 more bins. It emphasised the importance of completing the pipe repair, which had been outstanding since June 2021 and risked damage to the property. Since the COVID-19 measures requested by the resident were declined by its main contractor, it said it had arranged for the repair to proceed using different contractors.
The resident documented further incidents of Neighbour A moving the rubbish/bin and creating noise that she felt to be excessive between 26 and 30 December 2021. On 6 January 2022 she requested contact details for her housing officer’s line manager, as she said she was “not happy with the way this ASB complaint is being dealt with”. She did not receive a response, and repeated her request on 9 and 14 January 2022. She continued to document ASB incidents between 8 and 16 January 2022.
On 20 January 2022 the resident phoned the landlord regarding its lack of response to her 3 recent emails. She then documented a further ASB incident on 23 January 2022. On 24 January 2022 the landlord’s officer emailed the resident and apologised for their delayed reply. They explained that they had been on unexpectedly early parental leave since Christmas and had returned to work that day. They provided their manager’s details as requested. The resident contacted the manager on 27 January 2022 and requested a meeting with them. She explained the situation regarding the ASB and its impact on her, asked for support and action, highlighted her concerns about Neighbour A’s mental health, and listed a number of unresolved issues. These were:
1. Her lack of response to the landlord’s email of 16 July 2021;
2. The fact that she was expected to contact the police to resolve the ASB issue;
3. The fact that she had been advised to contact environmental health;
4. The fact that a meeting with a manager, to discuss the “safest and wisest way” to deal with the repair issue, did not happen;
5. Her request for the landlord to write to Neighbour A asking her to stop her “disrespectful and antisocial” behaviour.
The resident said she felt that the landlord’s plan of action should involve:
1. Determining whether access to her garden to resolve the issue was a tenancy requirement;
2. Contacting Neighbour A regarding an alternative method of access (if it was not a tenancy requirement for her to provide access herself);
3. Addressing the unresolved issues above;
4. Confirming who was legally responsible for the area in front of her property, and if it was herself, installing gates in order to prevent access and issues in that area;
5. Sending a letter to Neighbour A;
6. Providing an additional bin for recyclable waste.
Having received no reply, the resident emailed the landlord again on 1 February 2022 and asked it to treat her email of 27 January 2022 “with the utmost urgency”. She referred to further incidents, which she had continued to document in the shared online folder since 25 January 2022.
On 2 February 2022 the overflow pipe repair was re-raised on the landlord’s system, stating the resident’s requirements regarding COVID-19 measures. On 3 February 2022 the landlord enquired whether a contractor that had supplied a quote was willing to comply with the COVID-19 measures. On 4 February 2022 the contractor confirmed that its operative was willing to wear full PPE, do a lateral flow test and keep distance wherever possible, but that they were not vaccinated against COVID-19.
The same day (4 February 2022), the landlord emailed the resident. It told her that, following an internal meeting, it understood what she had had to deal with and had agreed some actions to move her case forward. It suggested a meeting to discuss this, which its housing officer would arrange once they had some feedback on the actions agreed. The same day, the housing officer told the resident they were planning to visit the following week to assign a designated place for the bin/rubbish to be kept. They asked the resident for the outcome of any investigations by the local authority in relation to noise nuisance. They also updated her that they had sourced contractors who were willing to comply with most of the COVID-19 measures requested. The resident replied on 7 February 2022 asking what actions had been agreed and when. She pointed out that photos supplied by the landlord for the pipe repair showed the wrong part of the building, noted that the ASB continued, and asked the landlord a number of questions, including whether giving access to her garden was a tenancy requirement.
Later on 7 February 2022, the landlord accepted the contractor’s quote for the pipe repair. An appointment that was agreed with the resident subsequently took place on 9 February 2022. The contractor accessed the garden and found that the leak was coming from a brown spot on the pipework, possibly as a result of the fitting not being glued properly. The operative’s notes stated that the pipe was very high and that the job would require a footman. It would involve chopping out and replacing a section of pipe. An updated quote for the works was accepted by the landlord.
On 9 February 2022 the landlord forwarded its email of 4 February 2022 to the resident, noting that it was awaiting a response to some points. The resident replied on 10 February 2022 that she had missed the email on 4 February 2022. She thanked the landlord for arranging “a cooperative and diligent contractor” who provided proof of a negative lateral flow test. She said she would like to meet the landlord when it visited the property, requested a brief confidential meeting during the visit, and noted that the building would benefit from an extra recycling bin. The resident continued to document incidents of noise and bin moving on 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 February 2022, and on 15 February 2022 she asked the landlord if it had received her email of 10 February 2022. The landlord apologised for its delayed reply and suggested a meeting on 18 February 2022. This was agreed by the resident, but later postponed due to adverse weather.
On 18 February 2022 the landlord asked its contractor to confirm when an appointment would be made for the follow-up overflow pipe repair works. The contractor replied on 19 February 2022 that it had contacted the resident several times and left messages asking to book in for 21 February 2022. Also on 19 February 2022, the resident documented a second confrontation between herself and Neighbour A. On 21 February 2022 the landlord contacted the resident about a rearranged meeting, and the resident informed the landlord that she had been unable to meet with it that day or respond to its contractor’s calls as a member of her family was unwell.
On 22 February 2022 the resident complained to the landlord, stating that:
1. She had originally intended to submit a complaint on 20 February 2022, but her daughter and grandchild contracted COVID-19 while she was putting her submission together. In the intervening period, the landlord had followed up with her regarding the meeting she asked for in December 2021.
2. Her complaint was regarding 2 issues:
  1. Completion of repairs at her property;
  2. The “more serious and pressing situation” of ASB from her neighbour, which meant she was “potentially facing assault”.
3. The initial problem related to the repair of a leaking water pipe and the associated access arrangements. In order for her to provide access to the back garden through her flat, she required sufficient COVID-19 measures to be in place.
4. Due to the access issue and delay in completing the repair, Neighbour A – who was younger, more able, not vulnerable, and also had access to the rear of the property via a window leading onto a low roof – had been pushing for the repair to be done.
5. The ASB from Neighbour A began in October 2021, and she reported it to the landlord on 1 December 2021. It had escalated in the past fortnight and especially within the past 24 hours. She was now worried about her safety.
6. She had reported incidents by email and phone, but many of her reports had been incorrectly logged as enquiries on the landlord’s portal and closed off as ‘responded to’. A recent report on 8 February 2022 was closed after the landlord advised her to contact the police and other authorities.
7. She had had to purchase a hidden camera due to the frequency of incidents and the landlord’s requirement for evidence.
8. She believed the landlord had not followed its ASB policy. It had not attempted any early interventions, made contact with her within 24 hours, or visited her within 5 days. It had also not responded to her questions.
9. After 4 requests for a manager’s contact details, the manager said they had agreed some actions to move her case forward and suggested a meeting once these had been completed. 3 weeks later, nothing had been done.
10. In the past 24 hours there had been a “verbally abusive confrontation” with swearing, thumping on her bedroom ceiling from 4am, loud music, a rubbish bag thrown onto her windowsill, desiccated coconut thrown onto her faux grass and decking, and further movement of the bin under her window. She continued to provide evidence using a shared online folder.
11. To put things right, she asked the landlord to:
  1. Send her neighbour a warning letter;
  2. Require her neighbour to sign an Acceptable Behaviour Contract;
  3. Answer 7 questions she had asked about its ASB investigation;
  4. Confirm whether access from Property A to fix the pipe had been explored;
  5. Attempt mediation before asking her to begin a “crusade” against her neighbour.
The landlord’s contractor was made aware that a member of the resident’s family had contracted COVID-19 on 23 February 2022. At the landlord’s request, it attempted to rebook the appointment on 4 March 2022, but the resident said that as she was shielding she wanted to wait until her family member was fully better before the works took place. She said she would contact the contractor when she was ready.
Also on 4 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to say that she had submitted an online complaint 8 working days earlier but had yet to receive a response. She continued to document incidents of noise by Neighbour A.
This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord replied to the resident’s email, acknowledged her complaint, or provided an anticipated response date. On 9 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord again to say that she was still awaiting a response to her complaint after 12 working days. The landlord then issued its stage 1 complaint response the same day, stating that:
1. It was sorry to hear that the resident was unhappy with the service she had received.
2. It confirmed that it was a tenancy requirement for her to provide access for the pipe repair. It had explored other access options but these were not feasible.
3. It thanked her for providing video and photo evidence, but the evidence of noise nuisance provided was not sufficient to prove ASB. This was because it could not verify the volume of the noise in the recordings or the time of day. It was therefore unable to send Neighbour A a warning letter. Instead, it would send them a “written notification” asking them to make every effort to keep noise to a minimum between 11pm and 7am. It also recommended that the resident contacted environmental health who would be able to assist with verifying the noise.
4. It had reviewed the evidence provided regarding the litter issue and noted that the communal bin was being moved back and forth by 2 different tenants. As there was no current designated area for litter, it would be unreasonable for it to issue a tenancy warning. Instead, it would write to all residents of the block to allocate an area for litter and waste disposal.
5. It was able to hear a heated conversation between 2 or 3 parties on one of the audio recordings. The recordings did not appear to contain any threats or verbal abuse. It would therefore be inappropriate for it to take formal action. It reiterated its previous advice to contact the police if she felt threatened or in danger.
6. It was sorry she felt it should have intervened at an earlier stage. It clarified that it had spoken to Neighbour A about her concerns in mid-February 2022. It had also spoken to them about mediation, but they declined this.
7. It recognised that it had not arranged a meeting as agreed. It had contacted her in early February 2022 to arrange a visit, and it was sorry it did not do so sooner. This was due to personal circumstances that led to its officer’s unplanned absence. It was keen to explore her concerns and arrange a meeting at the earliest opportunity. It offered £50 compensation in recognition of this service failure.
8. It was sorry she felt it was putting pressure on her to “sort things out”. It was reasonable to expect someone reporting these types of concerns to contribute to the case in order to “qualify the allegations”.
9. It was aware of its obligations under its ASB policy. It had highlighted the actions it had taken and would take to resolve the waste disposal dispute.
10. It thanked her for bringing the matter to its attention. If she was unhappy with its stage 1 response, she could request escalation to stage 2 within 20 working days.
The resident documented further incidents involving her neighbour between 11 and 17 March 2022. On 17 March 2022 the landlord’s contractor attended the property but was unable to complete the overflow pipe repair as its 3-tier ladder did not reach the part of the property where the pipe was located. Its notes stated that it would need to hire a bigger ladder. An updated quote was accepted by the landlord.
Following further incidents on 21, 22 and 23 March 2022, the resident requested to escalate her complaint on 23 March 2022. She stated in her email and attached letter that:
1. This was the first time the landlord had confirmed her requirement to provide access for the pipe repair, despite her requests for confirmation on 27 January 2021 and 15 February 2022.
2. She felt it did not understand the gravity of the situation and was reluctant to acknowledge that her neighbour’s behaviour constituted ASB according to its definition. She felt it was not fulfilling its policy obligations.
3. She felt its reference to the bin area not being designated showed that it had not considered all of the evidence supplied. She disagreed with its stance that it was unreasonable to issue a tenancy warning.
4. She agreed there had been “a severe service failure”. She had been asking for a meeting since 1 December 2021. The landlord was supposed to contact her within 2 days of an ASB report and arrange a meeting within 5 days, but instead it had contacted her by phone after 17 days and by email after 23 days. It had also failed to arrange a meeting.
5. She did not understand what it meant by “I am keen to explore your concerns”, as it had stated the evidence provided was insufficient.
6. She disagreed that the evidence was insufficient. The landlord had not followed up with the resident of Property B who was also affected by the ASB from Neighbour A. She had mentioned this in her original complaint and it had not responded. It had also dismissed “most of the vital and obvious incidents of ASB”.
7. She felt £50 was inadequate compensation for “6 months of daily harassment, detriment to health and wellbeing and damage to property”.
8. She felt the landlord’s officer was not the right person to deal with her case, as they had failed to understand the sensitivity and severity of the situation and its effects on her.
9. Due to the continuing ASB, for the first time she had contacted Neighbour A directly via text message on 22 March 2022 to politely ask them to cease their behaviour. She provided evidence that they responded with expletives.
10. She would like her complaint escalated to stage 2 and “reviewed by an independent person who is committed to following your own policies”.
The resident documented further incidents of noise and bin moving between 24 March 2022 and 1 April 2022. On 28 March 2022 the landlord’s contractor was again unable to complete the pipe repair due to an issue with sourcing a ladder of sufficient length. The same day, the resident emailed the landlord and re-attached her escalation request. On 29 March 2022 the landlord replied that it was happy to progress the complaint and asked what outcome the resident was seeking. In particular, it asked her to clarify what she meant by “the housing officer is not following policy”. The resident replied with details of the 3 outcomes she was seeking on 30 March 2022. These were:
1. A warning letter to be issued to Neighbour A;
2. The repair to be completed “in the safest way possible”, exploring access via Property A or Property B;
3. Increased compensation, taking account of the nuisance, stress, impact on her wellbeing, and damage to her faux grass.
The resident continued to document incidents involving Neighbour A between 2 and 6 April 2022. On 3 April 2022 the neighbour left some large items of furniture, including an armchair and a table, outside the resident’s living room window. The resident sent Neighbour A details of the council’s bulk collection service on 6 April 2022.
The landlord chased the progress of the overflow pipe repair with its contractor on 6 April 2022. It replied that the resident’s family member, who gave access to the property, was currently abroad for 2 weeks.
On 12 April 2022 the resident told the landlord it had been nearly 2 weeks since she replied to its request for more information before it would escalate her complaint. She requested an update and noted that the daily ASB continued. The same day, the landlord replied and asked the resident to accept its “humble apology” for missing and not replying to her email. It accepted that she had written “a long and considered response” and confirmed that it had now progressed her complaint to stage 2 of its process. On 13 April 2022 it advised that an independent reviewer would review her case within 20 days, following which it would provide a written stage 2 response. It noted that it would not be able to disclose whether it had sent a warning letter to another tenant.
The landlord compiled a ‘complaint review pack’ on 20 April 2022. This contained 43 items of correspondence and summarised the key issues, background and timeline of the complaint, together with the proposed findings, recommendations and compensation due. On 22 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord following her family member’s return. She said she was not prepared to accept its verbal offer of £250 compensation, as this amount did not reflect the distress and impact to her health and wellbeing since the ASB began 7 months ago, or the damage caused to her faux grass. She confirmed that she did not expect the landlord to act outside its policies, but she did expect it to follow its policies and resolve the ASB situation.
On 9 May 2022 the resident returned home from an appointment and found that a piece of glass in her bedroom window had been smashed. She informed the landlord of this the following day, noting that Neighbour A was an obvious suspect. She said she would be reviewing CCTV for any proof and asked if the landlord could assist with this. She also asked when the 20 days for her stage 2 complaint response was due to end. On 11 May 2022 the resident reported the damage to her window to the police. A police officer visited her property on 12 May 2022 and generated a crime report, ASB report and vulnerable person report. On 10 or 12 May 2022 the landlord’s contractor was due to attend the resident’s property to complete the pipe repair, but had to rearrange due to a mix-up with hiring a long ladder. On 13 May 2022 the landlord raised the window repair on its system, and accepted a quote from a contractor the same day.
Also on 13 May 2022, the landlord confirmed that it was dealing with the furniture that had been left outside the resident’s window, and apologised for its delayed stage 2 complaint response. It explained that this was due to a recent management restructure. It told the resident that, in order to respond effectively, it had extended the response date to 23 May 2022.
On 17 May 2022 the landlord’s contractor was due to carry out the window repair, but there was confusion regarding the time of the appointment. After the resident agreed a time with the landlord, the contractor advised that the appointment had been suspended and did not attend. The same day, the landlord’s other contractor attended to carry out the overflow pipe repair, but its larger ladder would not fit past the resident’s kitchen door. The contractor took photos to demonstrate the issue and advised that one option would be to saw down the security bars on the kitchen window to allow the ladder to pass through, then later replace them. The resident updated the landlord and requested that if the kitchen window bars were sawn down, it also removed the bars from her bedroom.
On 18 May 2022 the work order for the window repair was closed and re-raised. The landlord allocated the job to another contractor on 19 May 2022 and informed the resident of this on 20 May 2022. In her reply on 23 May 2022, the resident told the landlord that the police felt “a lot of this ASB could have been prevented had [the landlord] intervened much earlier”, and that the issues were the landlord’s responsibility to resolve, not the police’s. She noted that the bulky furniture remained outside her window, and daily noise and littering by Neighbour A continued. The resident copied her email to her local councillor. On 25 May 2022 the landlord raised a purchase order for removal of the furniture. On 26 May 2022 it advised its contractor that it was arranging a surveyor visit in relation to the pipe repair, and asked the contractor to place the job on hold. On 6 June 2022 the re-raised window repair was assigned to a contractor. The furniture was removed on or around 9 June 2022. The landlord corresponded further with its contractor regarding the pipe repair on 10 and 11 June 2022, and asked its other contractor to arrange the window repair with the resident on 13 June 2022. An appointment for the window repair was agreed on 15 June 2022.
On 17 June 2022, following an issue with a staff member’s misplaced work phone, the landlord contacted its contractor about the pipe repair. On 21 June 2022 it discussed the repair with the contractor and requested a quote to dismantle the existing burglar bars and supply/fit new ones to the resident’s window opening. The quote was supplied and accepted on 22 June 2022. On 24 June 2022 the landlord’s other contractor attended the resident’s property and measured the window pane requiring replacement. The landlord accepted a quote supplied by the contractor on 28 June 2022. On 29 June 2022 it chased its contractor regarding the pipe repair, and the contractor replied that the resident had said she needed to speak to the landlord before booking a repair appointment.
On 5 July 2022 the resident emailed the landlord’s stage 2 responder. She said it had been nearly 3 weeks since anyone had written to her, and 2 weeks since she had contacted the landlord about its delayed stage 2 response. She noted that she had phoned and left voicemails after the original due date passed; following this, the landlord informed her on 27 May 2022 of a delay until 15 June 2022, then only informed her after 5.30pm on 4 July 2022 of a further delay. She felt this was “a very poor response” and “abominable service” with “lack of decent communication”. She also highlighted that she had given access to contractors for the water pipe repair on 3 occasions, but each time the contractor had failed to repair the pipe. The contractor now wanted to visit for a fourth time to saw down her burglar bars, but had not yet measured the window. The resident emphasised that, if the bars were removed, they must be immediately replaced with double glazed windows or unlockable sliding bars. She told the landlord that she experienced heart palpitations and loss of breath when her window was smashed, and had had to call an ambulance the previous week. She said her health was affected by the ongoing ASB.
On 6 July 2022 the landlord apologised to the resident for its delayed stage 2 response, which it aimed to send by the end of the week (8 July 2022). On 11 July 2022 the resident replied that she had still not received the response. On 12 July 2022 the landlord told her that there had been a further delay and it was sorry. It then issued its stage 2 complaint response on 15 July 2022, stating that:
1. It apologised that the response had been sent late and outside its expected timeframe. It had deemed this a service failure and would compensate the resident £100 for its delayed response.
2. In accordance with its complaints procedure, it had compiled a detailed review pack which was sent to an independent manager for their review.
3. In relation to repairs:
  1. Its aim was to investigate the source of the leak and fix it before any damage was caused.
  2. Its contractors looked into alternative ways to investigate the source of the leak without any disturbance to the resident. However, they found that the only feasible access route was through the resident’s property.
  3. The resident had understandably raised concerns about her health and safety due to contractors entering her property during a pandemic. It did not want to put her at any risk, and in line with government guidelines, its contractors would ensure extra safety measures were put in place.
  4. The best option was for the contractors to remove the safety bars from the resident’s ground floor bedroom window to transport a large ladder through to the garden. The bars would be put back once the works had been completed.
  5. The contractors had attended, and further attempts were made to book appointments, but due to unforeseen delays the works were still pending. It had contacted the resident by phone to make arrangements for access, and followed this up by email on 6 July 2022. It would contact her again on 18 July 2022 to agree a convenient day and time for access.
  6. It would continue to work with its contractors to ensure minimal disturbance to the resident while works were carried out.
  7. An appointment had been booked to carry out the window repair on 25 July 2022.
4. In relation to ASB:
  1. It could see that an ongoing dispute between the resident and her neighbour was causing her great distress, and it was a shame that they were not getting on.
  2. It had analysed the evidence provided by the resident, which identified that the rubbish bins were being moved back and forth. It was aware that an arrangement was agreed by residents for the bins to be kept at the front of the property. It would be ideal for everyone to abide by what was agreed, as there was no designated area for the bins. Moving the bins would therefore not be considered a breach of tenancy agreement. However, if there was a deliberate act taking place to disturb neighbours by moving the bins, it would investigate accordingly.
  3. The resident had informed it that there had been threats, harassment and noise nuisance by Neighbour A. It had listened to audio recordings provided, which showed raised voices but no threats. The police had also confirmed that they did not have enough evidence to prosecute.
  4. It was imperative that the resident kept a distance from her neighbour, especially if she felt threatened. It advised her to report threatening behaviour to the police.
  5. It also advised her to report noise nuisance to environmental health, as little progress could be made in relation to noise without their input. Environmental health had a necessary equipment and methods to measure levels of noise, and without this evidence it could not reasonably issue any warnings.
  6. It was reliant on sufficient evidence and support from the local authority and police. This evidence supported any enforcement action it may decide to take. It therefore asked the resident to continue reporting incidents to it.
  7. Mediation had previously been offered but refused. It would like to revisit this option to help resolve the ongoing dispute.
  8. It would also send a written agreement to all residents in the block about the bin arrangements/placement. This would clarify the position for all. If the agreement was broken, it would take further action against those who did not comply.
5. In summary, it believed there were lessons to be learned from its handling of the resident’s case. The most evident of these was its delayed complaint review, for which it apologised and thanked her for her patience. It now held daily ‘complaints huddles’ to review complaints and prevent delayed responses.
6. It offered increased compensation of £530, comprising:
  1. £80 for its lack of early intervention by arranging a meeting (increased from £50 at stage 1);
  2. £100 for its failure to follow its ASB policy and procedure;
  3. £100 for its late stage 2 response;
  4. £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Post complaint

The resident documented further incidents involving her neighbour between 15 and 18 July 2022. On 19 and 21 July 2022 the landlord attempted to contact the resident but was unable to get through. On 21 July 2022 the resident confirmed receipt of the stage 2 response and advised that she would need until the following week to read through it and decide her position.
On 25 July 2022 the landlord’s contractor was unable to carry out the window repair as the glass was not ready. On 26 July 2022 the landlord’s stage 2 responder contacted the resident about the ongoing repairs, and the same day the contractor told the landlord that the resident was no longer willing to book an appointment for the pipe repair to be carried out using her property as an access route. The resident had asked the contractor to access the garden via a fence from a side road, but this presented a health and safety issue due to the size of the ladder required. On 29 July 2022 the window repair was successfully completed.
Also on 29 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord in reply to its stage 2 response. She said she had not seen any evidence of changed actions or interventions by the landlord to stop the ASB; the only new actions from the stage 2 response related to revisiting mediation and sending a general letter to all residents regarding bin placement. She asked when the letter would be sent and what further action would be taken if tenants did not comply. She also asked about other possible actions (such as an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement), legal responsibility for the area at the front of the property, and the fire safety issue of the burglar bars in her bedroom. She highlighted delays and poor communication regarding the window repair, and advised that she did not consider the compensation offer of £530 to be acceptable.
On 3 August 2022 the contractor assigned to the pipe repair told the landlord it was no longer able to complete the job. On 5 August 2022 the landlord told the resident it would respond to her regarding the stage 2 response on 8 August 2022. However, it did not do so.
The resident continued to document ASB incidents in August, September and October 2022. On 8 October 2022 she contacted the police to report an incident on 7 October 2022 where Neighbour A reportedly shouted and swore at her, threatened her with items including a piece of wood and broken ironing board, and tipped the contents of the bin onto the floor.
On 4 November 2022 the landlord’s contractor completed the overflow pipe repair, gaining access to the pipe from Property B. However, despite the leak being fixed, the resident continued to experience issues with Neighbour A moving the bin and creating noise nuisance.
On 11 November 2022 the resident contacted her local authority’s environmental health service, which logged 2 complaints: 1 in relation to noise nuisance and 1 in relation to littering and fly tipping. However, on 14 November 2022 the local authority informed the resident that “this matter needs to be dealt with by your landlord as they hold the powers to act under their tenancy regulations”. It copied in its ASB team so that an officer could give advice.
On 17 November 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident, Neighbour A and Neighbour B. Its letter stated that the block’s communal bin was missing, and that a replacement had been ordered. It also clarified the bin collection rules for the borough and its expectations for tenants, namely:
1. All waste should be contained within strong refuse sacks.
2. Loose waste should not be put out, as this could attract vermin.
3. All waste bags should be left out after 9pm on the evening prior to collection, or before 6am on the morning of collection. Collections took place twice a week on Tuesdays and Fridays.
4. All waste bags should be placed in the plastic bin at the front of the block. If there was insufficient space in the bin, excess waste bags should be placed next to the bin. If this happened frequently, it would review whether an extra bin was required.
5. The bin and rubbish must remain behind the front garden wall on the left (facing the building) away from the ground floor windows.
The letter further stated that failure to comply with these rules could result in action being taken for dumping rubbish or fly tipping.
On 22 November 2022 the landlord sent a “revised stage 2 response” to the resident after receiving an information request from this Service. Its revised response stated that:
1. It had recently been contacted by the Ombudsman in relation to the resident’s complaint. As part of its internal process, it had taken the opportunity to revisit the issues raised and discuss the case further.
2. Following re-evaluation of the pipe repair and considering the resident’s reluctance to let operatives come through her property while she was shielding, it had gained access via the roof from the top floor flat. It completed the repair on 11 November 2022.
3. It had previously signposted the resident to environmental health regarding noise nuisance. If the noise was identified as a deliberate act rather than domestic household noise, it would manage the nuisance accordingly.
4. It would continue to correspond with Neighbour A regarding ongoing issues around the bins being moved. As previously stated, it could not reasonably issue any warnings based on the evidence provided. However, it asked the resident to continue to work with it by providing incident sheets. It repeated its previous advice in relation to keeping her distance from her neighbour and reporting threatening behaviour to the police.
5. It had previously accepted that it did not intervene at an early enough stage, and offered £100 for this. After further consideration, it felt it should have attended sooner and been more proactive in managing the issues raised. It had therefore increased its offer to the maximum allowed by its policy in recognition of the upset caused.
6. It had not previously offered compensation for missed or unfulfilled appointments as it was waiting for all repairs to be completed. It could now see that the resident experienced 4 missed appointments, with several being due to contractors attending with incorrect equipment and not being able to carry out work. It identified this as a service failure and would compensate the resident in line with its policy for missed appointments.
7. It offered increased compensation of £1,170, comprising:
  1. £250 for its lack of early intervention by arranging a meeting;
  2. £250 for its failure to follow its ASB policy and procedure;
  3. £100 for its late stage 2 response;
  4. £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused;
  5. £220 for 4 missed appointments at £30 each, plus £100 for the wasted time and inconvenience of this.
The resident replied to the landlord on 23 November 2022, noting that it had previously said it would contact her on 8 August 2022 but did not do so. She said that the ASB continued daily, and that she had contacted environmental health which advised that the landlord needed to deal with the issue. She also said that, due to the rubbish issues, rodents had begun to appear. She was shocked that the landlord did not send a letter to tenants until 17 November 2022, and unhappy that the letter was a general one (rather than one addressed specifically to Neighbour A). She still felt that the compensation did not reflect all aspects of her complaint, such as damage to her faux grass, and that the revised stage 2 response did not set out a plan of action for the ASB.
On 19 January 2023 the resident informed the landlord that the ASB by Neighbour A had not ceased. She noted that, despite its letter of 17 November 2022 and the continued issues, it had not taken any action. The resident continued to document incidents of ASB each month throughout 2023, uploading 20 pieces of evidence to the shared folder in January, 16 in February, 1 in March, 6 in April, 5 in June, 7 in July, 19 in August, 3 in September, 2 in October, and 6 in December.
On 31 August 2023 the landlord carried out an ‘annual visit’ to the resident’s property. The resident noted that this was the first time such a visit had taken place. During the visit, the landlord heard “someone using the communal stairs” and “a door being slammed shut”. It advised that this sounded like “usual household noise”. The resident showed the landlord the location of a rubbish bag at the front of the property, which she felt was in the wrong place, but the landlord felt it was in accordance with its letter of 17 November 2022. Following the visit, the landlord took a number of actions to address the issues raised, including arranging a visit to assess the functioning of a door that slammed, carrying out a sound test with another officer present, and taking measurements with a view to installing a bin store.
On 1 September 2023 the local authority’s ASB unit contacted the resident following a councillor enquiry. The resident replied that the local authority had told her in November 2022 that the issues needed to be dealt with by her landlord; however, she hoped the ASB unit was able to help. On 25 October 2023 the ASB unit asked the resident how things were with Neighbour A. She told it that the landlord had not contacted her since its visit on 31 August 2023, and that the ASB was still going on 2 years later. The ongoing issues related to moving of rubbish, door slamming and thumping up and down the stairs. She said she was considering legal action but was waiting for this Service to investigate her case first.
On 27 October 2023 the ASB unit obtained an update from the landlord regarding its visit to the resident on 31 August 2023. On 16 November 2023 the ASB unit told the landlord that it felt more bins were needed, as there were more rubbish bags than bins provided. It said it had viewed the images and videos supplied by the resident, and it was clear that on some occasions the bins were pushed under her window and not neatly stacked. There was also evidence of loose rubbish and cardboard not broken down neatly. The ASB officer told the landlord they sympathised with the resident as “I’m sure at times the rubbish will smell and this outside [her] window is unpleasant and unsightly”. In response to a comment by the landlord, they noted that other households on the street may not be bothered about the rubbish as some individuals had “more pride about where they live than others”. The officer recommended some actions for the landlord to take, including installing a bin shed.
The resident informed this Service on 18 December 2023 that Neighbour A continued to behave in an antisocial way, and that she had experienced a heart attack earlier in the year which she attributed to the stress of the situation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is important to note that the Ombudsman’s role is to examine the landlord’s response to the reports made by the resident. Therefore, with regard to the ASB case, this investigation will assess the action taken by the landlord rather than the ASB itself. It would not be appropriate for this Service to require the landlord to take specific action(s) against Neighbour A, as any such action would depend on the nature and recency of evidence available at the time. Instead, the Ombudsman’s investigation will consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its legal obligations, policies and procedures, and whether it treated the resident fairly in the full circumstances of the case.
In addition, the Ombudsman cannot determine whether the landlord’s action or inaction caused or exacerbated a health condition. Such matters are best suited for investigation by way of a personal injury insurance claim or through the courts.

Water pipe repair

The documentation provided to this Service indicates that the overflow pipe leak was reported to the landlord by the resident in January 2021, and again in May 2021. However, the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses state that the repair was first reported in June 2021. This had the effect of minimising the overall timescale of the repair. While the landlord may have made an error in relation to the start date of the issue in its stage 1 response, the reference to a report in January 2021 was contained within its stage 2 complaint review pack, and so it would have been aware at the time of its stage 2 response. Additional compensation for missed appointments was included in the landlord’s revised stage 2 response (after the resident repeatedly referred to a missed appointment in January 2021), but did not list the dates of the missed appointments. The landlord had also told the resident on 16 July 2021 that it could not yet follow up the alleged missed appointment in January 2021 with its contractors as the relevant job was still open. This supports the fact that the January 2021 appointment was related to the ongoing repair discussed in July 2021, and combined with the revised stage 2 response, indicates evasiveness by the landlord in relation to the length of its delay in repairing the pipe.
Having established the above, there is no evidence that the landlord progressed the pipe repair between January 2021 and May 2021. This was unsatisfactory. When the resident raised concerns about contractors entering her property and the associated risk of COVID-19 infection in June 2021, the landlord’s response was inflexible and did not take sufficient account of her vulnerability. At the time, while the landlord’s ASB policy had been amended to reflect its approach during the COVID-19 pandemic, no amendments had been made to the repair policy (to the Ombudsman’s knowledge) and no separate COVID-19 policy existed. The landlord was therefore unable to justify its decision making with reference to its current policies, and simply stated its position of applying the measures recommended by Public Health England to all residents, telling the resident that “we are unable to make any exceptions … to maintain our approach to treat our residents fairly”. This is evidence of a blanket, non-tailored approach that had the effect of treating all residents equally, but not equitably.
The landlord evidently had the option of using different contractors who were prepared to accommodate the resident’s proposed COVID-19 measures, as it later agreed to do so on 23 December 2021. It also had access to an effective system which allowed contractors to view and bid for jobs, making this aspect of the works straightforward. However, its delay in considering and progressing this option meant that the pipe remained leaking for 6 further months (between June and December 2021). The landlord also did not demonstrate sufficient sympathy and understanding of the resident’s concerns about contracting COVID-19, either when she first raised them in June 2021 or when it later agreed to accommodate her requests in December 2021.
Having agreed to use a different contractor, there was then a further delay in the landlord progressing the pipe repair. Its officer told the resident on 23 December 2021 that while “you may feel the repair is not urgent, it has been reported to me since June 2021 and it is important to get the issue resolved to prevent any detrimental impact or damage to [the] property”. Despite this, the repair was not raised until 6 weeks later (on 2 February 2022). This delay, particularly in view of the landlord’s position that the repair was urgent, was unacceptable.
The Ombudsman accepts that the repair was then assigned to a contractor which attended within a week and made appropriate efforts to progress the repair between February and August 2022. Factors which limited the progress of the repair during these months included: the resident’s family member contracting COVID-19 in February 2022; the resident’s family member being abroad in April 2022; logistical issues with access to the garden and/or pipe in May 2022; and the landlord’s request to place the works on hold in May 2022. Some of these factors were outside the landlord’s control.
It was reasonable for the contractor to attempt to accommodate the resident’s preferences regarding access to the garden (for example, exploring access via a side road and fence), and to conclude that these were impractical based on the available information. It was also reasonable for the landlord to accept the findings of its qualified contractor and to communicate these to the resident, together with an explanation. However, the proposal of sawing down the resident’s burglar bars in order to transport a large ladder through the window opening, before replacing the bars, seemed unnecessarily drastic and intrusive, and stopped being pursued by the landlord only when the resident refused. While it is appreciated that making arrangements for access to the relevant part of the rear of the property was challenging for the landlord, it did not demonstrate adequate consideration of the resident’s needs and concerns when planning the repair, including the impact of the disruption on her.
As well as its delay in repairing the pipe, the landlord delayed in confirming to the resident that giving access for the repair was a tenancy requirement. The resident asked if this was the case on 27 January 2022 and 7 February 2022, but the landlord did not respond until it issued its stage 1 complaint response on 9 March 2022, 6 weeks after the question was asked. While it was appropriate for the landlord to quote the relevant part of the tenancy agreement – relating to tenants’ responsibility to “allow [its] staff and agents to enter and inspect any part of the premises or to carry out any repairs or other work” when given reasonable notice – the resident’s reasons for refusing the landlord access until this was confirmed were understandable. The landlord’s delayed response was therefore a contributory factor in the pipe repair not being progressed between January and March 2022 (and, for some of this period, the repair had not been raised on its system). It is acknowledged that, once the resident was aware that granting access was a requirement of her tenancy, she allowed the landlord’s contractors to enter her property on multiple occasions, many of which did not result in the repair being completed.
The eventual solution to the pipe access issue – gaining access via the roof and Property B – was one that the landlord said it had explored previously in January 2021 and July 2021. In January 2021 it documented that “this was not feasible”, and in July 2021 its officer told the resident that “I have made contact with both households [Properties A and B] to obtain their consent but this has been declined due to similar health concerns and restricted external access”. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord would have been limited in what it could disclose to the resident regarding her neighbours’ reasons for refusal due to data protection. It is also possible that this access route became a feasible option in November 2022 because Neighbour B changed their position and agreed to facilitate access (perhaps due to the changing COVID-19 situation and/or developments in the ASB case, discussed below). It is unclear how the landlord would have proceeded with the repair if this option had not been available, and there is no evidence that it carried out any specific inspections, surveys or risk assessments, or sought specialist advice, relating to access options.
As the landlord said itself, it had a responsibility to complete repairs relating to the structure, exterior and pipework of its properties. According to its repair policy, it should have done so within 20 working days of the issue being reported. While it is generally accepted that complex repairs may take longer than the usual timeframe for routine repairs, the pipe issue was not complex; it was access that presented a challenge. The landlord also had not updated its repair policy to reflect changes to its repair timeframes and/or processes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Had it done so, and drawn the resident’s attention to relevant policy and tenancy requirements at an earlier stage, the repair may have been progressed more swiftly. Even taking account of periods during which government guidance may have stipulated that landlords complete essential repairs only, the ultimate 22-month delay in completing the repair was excessive and caused avoidable distress to the resident as well as damage to her garden. Some of the delays were avoidable (such as one relating to a staff member’s lost work phone), or unnecessary (such as the landlord asking its contractor to put the repair “on hold” while it arranged a surveyor visit, which seemingly did not happen). For the reasons discussed above, including the landlord’s initial inflexible approach, its poor and sometimes conflicting communication, and its lack of sensitivity in dealing with an elderly and vulnerable resident, a finding of severe maladministration has been made.
On a related subject, the landlord was dismissive of the resident’s concerns – expressed on at least 10 occasions between 21 June 2021 and 30 August 2023 – that the burglar bars in her smaller bedroom presented a fire safety hazard. Regardless of whether it considered this issue to form part of her complaint, the landlord should have promptly investigated the issue when she raised it, seeking advice and input from the appropriate authorities if necessary. An email sent by the landlord on 16 July 2021 suggested that it would contact “the relevant fire safety department”, but only if and when the resident confirmed whether the bars were already in situ when her tenancy commenced and (if not) who requested their installation. Given the potential safety implications, it was unacceptable for the landlord to make its investigation of this matter contingent upon the resident answering its questions. Since she apparently did not answer them, the bars remained in place for at least a further 26 months, with no confirmation having been received that they have been removed (or their safety confirmed) after 31 months. An order has therefore been made for the landlord to urgently rectify this situation.

Bedroom window repair

The resident found that a piece of glass in her bedroom window had been smashed on 9 May 2022, and reported this to the landlord on 10 May 2022. The landlord raised the repair 3 working days later on 13 May 2022. While it could have done so sooner, there was no indication that the resident’s immediate safety was at risk, as the damage affected a small area of a multi-panel window which was fitted with burglar bars. The affected pane of glass also had not shattered. The landlord promptly accepted a quote submitted by its contractor, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that its initial response to the repair was reasonable.
There was some confusion regarding an appointment on 17 and/or 18 May 2022, which led to the job being suspended on the system used by the landlord and its contractors. The confusion was no doubt upsetting for the resident, and it was appropriate for the landlord to ask its contractor why the job needed to be closed and re-raised. However, when the contractor did not reply, the landlord did not chase for a response and did not re-raise the job until 6 June 2022 (11 working days later). This delay was avoidable and unnecessarily prolonged the resident’s distress, in circumstances where she was worried about ASB from her neighbour and felt the damage was likely deliberate. The landlord should have taken this background into account and offered her support in relation to the “hate crime” that she believed had taken place. Its omission to do so demonstrated a lack of empathy and understanding of her needs. Though it is noted that the resident declined the police’s automated offer of a referral to Victim Support on 11 May 2022, she may have found a similar and more personal offer from the landlord reassuring, as this would have shown it was taking the matter seriously.
After the job was re-raised on 6 June 2022, it was assigned to the landlord’s subcontractor on 10 June 2022, who made attempts to contact the resident on 13 and 14 June 2022. An appointment was then confirmed on 15 June 2022. These timescales were not excessive. Despite some further confusion regarding an appointment on 24 June 2022, measurements of the glass were taken on this date. An appointment to replace the glass was then booked for 25 July 2022, with an interval of 1 month being frustrating for the resident, but understandable in view of the need to order a bespoke piece of glass. It was unfortunate that the glass was not ready for installation on 25 July 2022, and the landlord and/or its subcontractor could have improved the resident’s experience by monitoring progress of the order and keeping her updated regarding a possible postponement of the installation. However, the repair was completed 4 days after the original appointment, on 29 July 2022. The overall timeframe of 11 weeks exceeded the 20 days set out in the landlord’s repair policy, but did not cause significant additional detriment to the resident. As a result of the slight delay, confusion regarding appointments and varying levels of communication, a finding of service failure has been made in respect of the window repair.

ASB and noise nuisance

After the resident began to experience ASB from her neighbour in October 2021, she first reported this to the landlord on 1 December 2021. Having received no response, she re-sent her email on 2 and 9 December 2021. Unknown to her, her housing officer was on a secondment between 24 November 2021 and 16 December 2021, but cover arrangements were in place. The cover housing officer contacted the resident by phone on 14 December 2021, and on their return, the usual housing officer contacted her by phone on 17 December 2021 and by email on 23 December 2021. The landlord’s ASB policy stated that it would contact those reporting ASB within 1 working day, so its lack of response between 2 and 14 December 2021 was unsatisfactory. It was also unacceptable for the housing officer’s secondment to delay effective investigation of the resident’s case, with the cover housing officer telling her they would set up a meeting “once [her housing officer] returned to their usual duties”. However, it appears that the resident reported the ASB to her housing officer directly (as she received their auto-reply) and may have received a faster response if she had contacted the landlord via its call centre or online reporting system. This Service has not seen a copy of the automated response received, but if it did not signpost the resident to the relevant reporting facility or team mailbox, it would have been helpful for it to do so. Nevertheless, the landlord’s contact with the resident between 14 and 23 December 2021 was generally reasonable.
The landlord’s ASB policy further states that it will offer a meeting to those reporting ASB within 5 working days, with the caveat that meetings may not be face-to-face during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was apparent that the landlord’s resources were impacted by COVID-19 at the time, as the resident was informed that an ASB manager was “in isolation with no one covering”. The cover housing officer verbally offered the resident a meeting with a manager between 16 and 21 December 2021, and while she did not meet with a manager during this period, she did receive a phone call from her usual housing officer on 17 December 2021. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this could be seen to meet the landlord’s policy commitment of “not offer[ing] to visit the complainant, but offer[ing] to discuss the matter with them in detail over the phone”. However, the landlord later agreed that it did not offer a meeting when it said it would, and its assessment of the situation is accepted. In view of its conclusion, financial redress (initially of £50 and subsequently of £80) was appropriate.
When the landlord spoke to the resident on 17 December 2021, its advice for her to contact the police was reasonable, although it should have been mindful that victims of ASB are often reluctant to do so. This advice was of particular relevance given the resident’s description of escalating behaviour and the approaching Christmas closure period. Similarly, the landlord was correct to signpost the resident to her local environmental health service in relation to alleged excessive noise, but it should have accepted responsibility for investigating the circumstances of the noise and any housing-related factors. It could also have done more at this stage to explain the environmental health service’s investigation process, and could have drawn on its relationships with partner agencies to provide advice and contact details. During the same conversation, the landlord rightly apologised to the resident for its delay in acknowledging her ASB reports. However, its reference to seeking legal advice may have unintentionally raised her expectations in relation to action it would take.
The unexpected absence of the resident’s housing officer in January 2021 compounded her frustration regarding the landlord’s communication. While the officer’s absence was unavoidable and outside the landlord’s control, it again appeared that there was no robust cover arrangement in place. The landlord’s complaint review pack noted that the officer’s ‘out of office’ auto-reply was activated between 7 and 24 January 2022, this meant the resident would not have received an auto-reply to her first request for a manager’s contact details on 6 January 2022. There is also no evidence that she received an auto-reply to her emails of 9 and 14 January 2022, which could have been due to an IT or email error. The Ombudsman is satisfied that, when the officer returned to work on 24 January 2022, they responded promptly to the resident’s multiple emails, explained the reason for their absence, and provided their manager’s contact details.
Turning to the ASB reported by the resident, it was appropriate for the landlord to explain what it could and could not do in light of the evidence supplied. However, at times it delayed in doing so, resulting in the resident investing significant time and effort in gathering evidence of a type the landlord said it could not use (such as photos of the bin under her window, which did not prove who put it there). It is noted that, as well as not initially wishing to involve external agencies such as the police and environmental health, the resident sometimes did not wish the landlord to intervene; according to the landlord’s email of 23 December 2021, she asked it not to speak to Neighbour A “as you were concerned it may escalate the situation further and make your neighbour’s behaviour worse”. However, despite the landlord’s early reference to needing evidence such as “a witness statement from a non-biased party”, there is no evidence that it approached Neighbour B or other potential witnesses in relation to Neighbour A’s alleged behaviour. There were also other things it apparently omitted to do, such as conducting regular risk assessments; offering ASB support; providing diary sheets, with guidance on how to complete them to best effect; seeking police disclosure; and recommending use of the community trigger process if there were issues with the multi-agency response.
The landlord also told the resident in December 2021 that it would “visit the property in the new year to assess the situation further and arrange for an assigned area to be sectioned/marked for rubbish to be left for collection, then follow up in writing to all residents involved to prevent this conflict of location reoccurring in the future”. It also said it would explore ordering more bins. It appears that, following the housing officer’s unexpected absence in the new year, these actions were missed. Despite several further references to finding practical solutions for the bins, and a specific enquiry by the resident on 29 July 2022, the landlord did not write to the resident and her neighbours until almost a year later. There is also no evidence that it sectioned or marked an area for the bin to be stored at any point, with discussions around a bin store or shed only beginning following a councillor enquiry and the local authority’s intervention in August 2023. Its letter of 17 November 2022, while helpful in setting out rules, would have benefited from the inclusion of a photo or diagram showing correct bin placement. The landlord could also have implemented a fixed period of active monitoring after sending the letter, to reassure recipients that the terms would be appropriately enforced.
As stated above, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the ASB occurred or to decide whether the landlord should have taken specific actions against Neighbour A. It is relevant to note that the landlord would not have been able to disclose any action it did take to the resident. This Service has examined the landlord’s ASB records and has found some evidence of appropriate intervention, although there is more it could have done. For example, the landlord told the resident it had explored mediation with Neighbour A and they declined this, but there is no indication that it offered mediation (or information about its mediation service) to the resident. It based its decisions regarding the reported noise nuisance on the resident’s recordings, but did not explore technological options such as recording equipment and apps, and did not carry out its own observations of the noise until August 2023. It considered making adjustments to a door to prevent slamming, but did not explore larger scale modifications to the property such as flooring and soundproofing. While not all of these options may have been applicable to the resident’s case, it would have been helpful for the landlord to demonstrate that it had considered them. It could also have taken the time to outline the typically incremental nature of its non-legal ASB tools to the resident, with (for example) an Acceptable Behaviour Contract not usually being attempted until a written warning has been issued and proved ineffective.
Importantly, the landlord appeared to partially base its decision to take no tenancy action on the police’s decision not to proceed with a criminal prosecution. However, the police were involved in a minority of incidents – among the hundreds of incidents documented by the resident, there were 4 confrontations with Neighbour A and 1 incident of damage, not all of which were reported to the police – and, according to the resident, the police’s position was that the situation was the landlord’s responsibility to resolve. The police would also need to prove any criminal acts ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, whereas the landlord would act ‘on the balance of probabilities’. Irrespective of the landlord’s decisions about action, its explanations of its decision making were concerning. Likewise, in the context of the large volumes of photo, video and audio evidence provided by the resident, the landlord appeared to attach no evidential weight to her detailed written accounts of incidents, her screenshots of text messages, or third party evidence that she shared.
With regard to the bulky items of furniture reported by the resident on 3 April 2022, there is no evidence that the landlord took steps to arrange removal of these until 25 May 2022, despite the resident following this up 4 times between 12 April 2022 and 13 May 2022. The eventual removal took 2.5 months. While the Ombudsman understands that the items of furniture could not be conclusively linked to Neighbour A, the effect of their presence on the resident was obvious, and it should have arranged removal sooner.
Finally, it is noted that the resident referred to some aspects of her neighbour’s behaviour as being suspectedly hate related. In December 2021 and February 2022 she compared the landlord’s response to the approach set out in its ASB, hate and harassment policies. However, the only incident she specifically reported as being a “hate crime” was the window damage in May 2022, which could not be conclusively attributed to Neighbour A. Nevertheless, the incident met the landlord’s definition of “an incidence of ASB that is perceived by the victim to be motivated by prejudice”, and so it should have acted in accordance with its hate incidents and hate crime policy by responding within 1 working day and offering relevant support. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the report until 3 working days after it was made, and even then, it responded only by raising the repair. This was a restricted and inadequate response which focused on fixing the damage rather than (of equal importance) giving reassurance and allaying the resident’s fears about her safety. Acknowledging her concerns and offering support, even if she did not feel she required it, would have served to validate her feelings and improve her experience.
In summary, while the landlord did some things adequately, it fell short of the standard the Ombudsman would expect in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports. This resulted in the reported behaviour persisting, often without sufficient investigation or consequence, for over 2 years. This Service does not underestimate the impact of the ASB on the resident, who was elderly and vulnerable, particularly during a pandemic situation when she was unable to leave her home. Though the landlord accepted that it had failed to follow its ASB policy and procedure, it did not detail how it had done this or what it should have done differently (other than in vague terms). Consequently, its stage 2 redress of £430 (for ASB) did not reflect the extent of its failures and the impacts of this. A finding of maladministration has therefore been made.

Complaint handling

The resident’s email to the landlord on 1 December 2021 was titled “harassment complaint”, and the resident began by saying that she was “writing to make a complaint regarding harassment, threatening behaviour and spiteful treatment” from her neighbour. The Ombudsman notes that the term ‘complaint’ is sometimes used by residents and landlords to refer to a report of ASB, as opposed to a complaint about the landlord’s handling of ASB reports. On this occasion, since the resident had not previously reported ASB by her neighbour to the landlord, it was reasonable for the landlord to treat her communication as a service request rather than a formal complaint. However, since she had clearly stated that she wished to make a complaint, it would have been good practice for the landlord to explain the difference between a complaint and service request, and confirm how it proposed to deal with the resident’s report.
The resident subsequently submitted a formal complaint (using the landlord’s portal, of which she had not previously been aware) on 22 February 2022. The landlord issued its stage 1 response after 11 working days – a timeframe which, though it exceeded the landlord’s target timeframe by 1 working day, was not excessive. However, prior to sending the response, it did not acknowledge the complaint or provide an anticipated response date. This contravened its policy of acknowledging complaints within 2 working days, and caused uncertainty to the resident who chased the response twice.
The stage 1 response issued on 9 March 2022 was detailed and engaged with both aspects of the resident’s complaint, which related to repairs and ASB. However, despite recognising that a repair reported months earlier remained outstanding, it only found service failure in relation to its failure to arrange a meeting in connection with the ASB. In making this finding, it missed an opportunity to refer to the COVID-19 statements in version 1.1 of its ASB policy, which explained its position relating to face-to-face meetings during the pandemic (and other relevant matters). It also said it was “aware of our obligations under our ASB code” but used the level of evidence as a reason for not taking action, without referring to the resident’s suggestions of speaking to Neighbour B and/or other witnesses. Given that the landlord later agreed it had not followed its ASB policy and procedure, its reference to being aware of its obligations at stage 1 appeared disingenuous. It also disregarded the resident’s concerns about its record keeping, whereby ASB reports were logged as ‘enquiries’ and marked as ‘responded to’ when there had been no response. The compensation offer of £50 reflected the failures described in the stage 1 response, but in view of the information available to the landlord at the time in relation to the repair, was disproportionately low.
The resident first asked to escalate her complaint on 23 March 2022, and followed this up on 28 March 2022 as she had not received a reply. While the 4-day delay in responding to the escalation request exceeded the landlord’s 2-day target timeframe for acknowledgements, it was reasonable for the landlord to request more information from the resident if it required this. However, the landlord missed the resident’s reply on 30 March 2022, leading her to contact it again on 12 April 2022. At this point, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer a ”humble apology”, provide an explanation for its error, and confirm escalation of the complaint the same day.
Unfortunately, further significant delays followed. The landlord told the resident on 13 April 2022 that it had 20 days to carry out an independent review of her case, but did not provide a target stage 2 response date. On 10 May 2022, 20 working days after the complaint was escalated on 12 April 2022, the resident asked when the 20-day period was due to end. The landlord rightly apologised and advised that it required an extension on 13 May 2022; however, had the resident not chased the response, it is unclear when or whether she would have received an update. It was appropriate for the landlord to explain that a recent management restructure was responsible for the delay, but when the resident asked whether a previously involved manager continued to work on her case, it did not respond. This would have been frustrating for the resident, who had already experienced issues when her ASB case was temporarily overseen by a different member of staff.
The landlord then failed to provide its stage 2 response by its extended target date of 23 May 2022. It did not inform the resident of this in advance or on the date the response was due. When the resident contacted it on 8 June 2022 (10 working days after she had expected to receive the response), the landlord informed her on 9 June 2022 that it required a further extension. The explanation it gave was that there had been a “slight delay in the [review] pack being assessed by independent reviewers”. Its use of the word ‘slight’ had the effect of minimising its failure, given that 20 working days had already passed since the stage 2 response was originally due.
In view of the second missed target date, it would have been good practice for the landlord to review its communication with the resident and ensure that she received regular updates while her complaint remained open, but it missed an opportunity to do so. The resident felt the need to chase the response again on 16 June 2022 and did not receive a response until the evening of 4 July 2022. On 6 July 2022 the landlord told her it expected to issue its stage 2 response by the end of the week (ie by 8 July 2022), but it did not. The eventual stage 2 response was sent on 15 July 2022, 77 working days after the resident requested escalation of her complaint and 63 working days after the request was accepted by the landlord. This delay was unacceptable, as was the level of the landlord’s communication while the overdue complaint response remained outstanding.
The stage 2 response was sent 15 minutes before a scheduled call between the stage 2 responder and the resident, meaning that the resident did not have time to read the response before the call. This effectively denied the resident the opportunity to discuss the response with the member of staff responsible for investigating her complaint, whereas rearranging the call would have made such a discussion possible. The resident did later provide a written response, and the stage 2 responder told her that they would contact her on 8 August 2022, but they did not do so. According to the resident, she received no further contact from the stage 2 responder until they issued a revised stage 2 response in November 2022 (discussed in more detail below). From her communications with this Service, it is evident that this caused her considerable frustration and further undermined her confidence in the landlord’s ability and willingness to resolve the issues she was experiencing.
The stage 2 response was detailed and correctly incorporated financial redress for its lateness. It is noted that any correspondence or report produced by the landlord’s independent reviewer has not been provided for inspection by this Service, and it does not appear that the landlord informed the resident who the reviewer was or whether they were internal or external. It therefore missed an opportunity to demonstrate openness and assure her of the impartiality of its review. Some aspects of the ensuing response were unsatisfactory: for instance, the response accepted that the pipe repair was “still pending” due to “unforeseen delays” more than a year after it was first reported, but did not find any failure in relation to this. With regard to the ASB reported by the resident, the landlord’s comment that “It is a shame to hear you are both not getting on” came across as patronising and trivialised the reports made by the resident, which included allegations of threats, intimidation, damage, and verbal abuse.
The landlord did not refer in its stage 2 response to the resident’s concerns about her neighbour’s mental health. Though it was right to be mindful of its data protection obligations, acknowledging her feelings and stating its general approach to ASB in such situations could have provided reassurance. It also did not apparently use the case review as an opportunity to reflect and improve on its case management, which may have led it (for example) to arrange an action plan in relation to the ASB or practical solutions in relation to the bin issue. Instead, it gave vague assurance that “if there is a deliberate act taking place to disturb neighbours … we will investigate accordingly”, but it introduced no way of measuring or investigating this. While it asked the resident to continue to report incidents of ASB, it did not outline what level of evidence it required in order to take action. In summary, there was no evidence of a meaningful attempt by the landlord to improve its response and address the ASB going forward – for example, by allocating a designated point of contact within its staff, arranging updates at an agreed frequency, assisting the resident in producing usable evidence, or committing to environmental actions such as the installation of a bin store.
Following a 3-month period of little or no contact with the resident, the landlord proactively issued a revised stage 2 response on 22 November 2022. This followed an information request by this Service on 1 November 2022. The landlord referred to the information request in its revised response, stating that “as part of our own internal process, we’ve taken the opportunity to revisit the issues raised and discuss further”. While it is appropriate for landlords to continually aim to improve and act on new information, in this case there had been no new information received, other than the completion of the pipe repair on 11 November 2022 and a subsequent review of missed appointments. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord reissued its stage 2 response in an attempt to avoid investigation and findings of failure by this Service. Though the increased compensation offer of £1,170 was more in line with what the Ombudsman would expect, it is not in the spirit of this Service’s dispute resolution principles or our complaint handling code for a landlord to make a substantial offer of redress late in a protracted process, with the intended effect that the Ombudsman will not consider the matter further. The provision of a revised stage 2 response, which recognised for the first time that the landlord should have “attended sooner and been more proactive in managing the issues raised”, is therefore an additional cause for concern.
For the reasons outlined above, a finding of severe maladministration in relation to complaint handling has been made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the water pipe repair;
2. service failure by the landlord in its handling of the bedroom window repair;
3. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance by a neighbour;
4. severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord delayed for 22 months in completing a water pipe repair, a situation which apparently gave rise to ASB from the resident’s neighbour. Its records contained conflicting information about when it became aware of the issue. While some of the delays were due to the resident’s concerns about COVID-19 infection, the landlord did not demonstrate sufficient understanding of her concerns or vulnerability, and did not make initially reasonable adjustments when it would have been appropriate for it to do so. It also delayed in identifying solutions that it later progressed. The delayed repair resulted in avoidable distress to the resident and damage to her garden. The landlord did not identify any failure in its handling of the repairs or offer compensation for this. It additionally failed to address a possible fire safety issue with burglar bars on the resident’s smaller bedroom window, which the resident raised 10 times.
The landlord repaired damage to the resident’s bedroom window after 11 weeks, which exceeded the timeframe of 20 working days set out in its repair policy. Its response was characterised by confusion and inconsistent communication, with one job suspended on its system without explanation and its reinstatement delayed. The final repair appointment was postponed by 4 days at short notice. Despite these shortcomings, communication with the resident by the landlord’s contractor was reasonable, the contractor accommodated her availability, and the delay did not cause her any significant additional disadvantage.
The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s reports of ASB within 1 working day or offer her a meeting within 5 working days. It also did not acknowledge her report of a hate incident within 1 working day or offer support. Cover arrangements when officers were absent were inadequate and caused further delays. By the landlord’s own admission, it did not act in accordance with its ASB policy and procedure in investigating the ASB reported by the resident and did not act quickly or proactively enough to resolve the issues. It wrote to residents regarding the location of their shared bin 11 months after it told the resident it would do so, and only explored practical solutions to the bin issue 20 months after it was first reported. While the landlord correctly signposted the resident to partner agencies, it did not accept responsibility for addressing the ASB itself, and its communication was at times confusing, inconsistent, and unsympathetic.
The landlord’s communication with the resident regarding her complaint was poor. It did not acknowledge her stage 1 complaint, and delayed significantly in identifying and accepting her escalation request. Its response times exceeded the timeframes set out in its policy at both stages, with the stage 2 response date being repeatedly extended. The overall timeframe of the complaint was almost 5 months. The landlord then issued a revised stage 2 response following an information request from this Service, with the apparent intention of avoiding investigation. The complaints process did not address all of the issues raised by the resident, and an independent review by an unidentified manager did not result in necessary changes to its ASB response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident for its delays, poor communication and other failures in its handling of her repairs, ASB reports and complaint. The apology should be made in writing by the landlord’s chief executive.
2. Pay the resident £3,000, comprising:
  1. £1,000 for its delays, poor communication and missed appointments in relation to the water pipe repair;
  2. £100 for its service failure in relation to the bedroom window repair;
  3. £600 for its failures in handling her reports of ASB, including failure to follow its ASB policy and procedure, failure to arrange a meeting, delays in taking practical steps to resolve the bin issue, and communication issues;
  4. £800 for its complaint handling failures;
  5. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her as a result of the above delays and failures;
  6. £300 in contribution towards the actual costs incurred by the resident in relation to the repairs, ASB and her complaint, including damage to her faux grass, equipment purchased for the purpose of gathering and storing evidence, and time and trouble invested in corresponding with the landlord over a 2-year period.

If the £1,170 (or other amount) previously offered by the landlord has been paid to the resident, this should be deducted from the amount above, meaning that the difference is now due.

Investigate whether any of the burglar bars in the resident’s property present a fire safety hazard (if they remain in situ), seeking advice from any specialist agency as required. If it is found that a hazard is present, the landlord must rectify this as a matter of urgency. If the bars are removed, the landlord should discuss alternative security measures with the resident and take reasonable steps to ensure that her ground floor property remains secure, including immediately following the time of removal.
Confirm to the resident the boundary of her flat and who holds responsibility for the area at the front of the building where the bin is kept.
Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its offer of training for its frontline staff who deal with ASB cases, and considers offering additional training, using the resident’s case as a learning example.