Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202309722)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309722

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

25 April 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 the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. She moved to the property, a 3-bedroom ground-floor flat, in December 2019 via a priority transfer. The property shares a communal entrance and stairwell with other flats in the block. The resident lives with her 2 teenage daughters.
The resident has a number of vulnerabilities and health conditions known to the landlord. She is a survivor of domestic violence and has been diagnosed with severe depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Throughout her dealings with the landlord and this Service, the resident has been represented by her adult daughter. For the purposes of this report, both are referred to as ‘the resident’ (unless it is necessary to distinguish between the resident and her representative to explain events).
The tenancy agreement sets out the obligations of the landlord and tenant. The landlord’s obligations include not interfering with or disturbing the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the property, unless the tenant breaks any of the conditions of the tenancy agreement; if any conditions are broken, the landlord may apply to court to end the tenancy. The tenant’s obligations include: to keep communal areas clean, tidy and free from obstruction; to ensure that all refuse and household waste is put into appropriate bin bags, chutes or containers, and not left in communal areas or gardens; not to damage any part of their property or shared areas (or allow their household members or guests to do so); not to cause a nuisance, disturbance or harassment to any person (or allow their household members or guests to do so); not to use or threaten violence; not to use or store illegal drugs; and to obtain the landlord’s permission before keeping any pets. The tenancy agreement specifically states that the landlord may take legal action against the tenant if they behave antisocially.
The landlord’s resident handbook (dated May 2021) states that a tenant’s housing officer is their main point of contact. It advises that, in the event of a disagreement between neighbours, tenants should try to sort out these problems themselves by raising the issue with their neighbour and explaining the effect on them. If they are unable to resolve issues on their own or feel unable to speak to their neighbour, they should speak to their housing officer. The handbook confirms that, if a tenant reports ASB, the landlord will take this seriously, offer support, provide extra security, try to move them if it is not safe for them to stay in their home, and take action to resolve the problem. This can include legal action as a last resort.
The landlord’s ASB policy and procedure documents set out the landlord’s process for responding to reports of ASB. The policy states that ASB includes behaviour such as swearing, littering, dog fouling, selling and using drugs, violence, and criminal damage. 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. In deciding what action to take, it will complete a risk assessment that considers the nature, frequency and impact of the problem behaviour. It aims to stop the behaviour through use of early intervention tools such as mediation, warnings and acceptable behaviour contracts. However, if there is sufficient evidence of a tenancy agreement breach, it will consider legal action such as injunctions and possession. The landlord will work in partnership with agencies such as the police, record all ASB cases, consult the reporting party before closing a case, and carry out a sensitive let where it recognises that a resident may be at risk of harm if they move into a property.
The landlord’s ASB procedure specifically states that staff should implement a sensitive let where a void occurs and current residents in the immediate area are committing ASB. It also states that, at the first report of an issue, staff should open a case on its ASB system. Staff are required to organise a telephone or video interview with the reporting party within 1-5 working days, depending on the level of risk, with written confirmation of the discussion and an action plan to be provided afterwards. Once the action plan has been agreed, staff should contact the alleged perpetrator of ASB within 5 working days (with the permission of the reporting party). They should also keep the reporting party updated regarding outcomes. The procedure states that the landlord will take action against the perpetrator if it is legally able to do so.
The landlord’s domestic noise and neighbourhood disputes policy refers to everyday noise (such as noise from household appliances, children and talking) and conflicts between neighbours where there has been no breach of tenancy agreement. As such, the policy and associated guidance are of limited relevance to the resident’s case. The policy states that excessively loud or amplified noise is considered noise nuisance and dealt with as ASB.
The landlord has a responsibility for the safety and wellbeing of its residents. Under the Care Act 2014, it has an additional responsibility to follow the 6 safeguarding principles of empowerment, prevention, proportionality, protection, partnership, and accountability. It aims to prevent the risk of abuse by identifying risk and areas of risk, exercising due diligence, and displaying professional curiosity. It recognises the key role of recording and sharing information in effective safeguarding practice, as well as the importance of a multi-agency approach. Its obligations and commitment are set out in its policies, procedures and guidance relating to safeguarding of adults, children and young people, which have been inspected by this Service.
The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy confirms (as stated above) that, where there has been a housing management issue at a property, it may treat the letting of that property as a sensitive let. This is where further eligibility criteria are set before the property is advertised to ensure it is suitable for the applicant. Tenants who are registered for a transfer will be awarded a priority banding based on how their housing affects their circumstances. Bands range from A-D, with Band A being the highest priority. Applicants may be awarded Band A if they have “a life-threatening medical condition, which includes mental health conditions that are seriously affected by their current housing”, or face “imminent personal risk which is life-threatening by remaining in their home”. In exceptional cases the landlord will consider transfers to help resolve neighbour disputes.
The landlord’s transfers procedure states that, if a tenant wishes to apply for a transfer, their housing officer should ask them to complete a transfer application form and provide information about its online system. The date the completed form is received is recorded on the relevant system, as this becomes the resident’s ‘priority date’. If a tenant has a medical condition which is being made worse by their current housing, they may be given a higher banding and should be asked to complete a medical self-assessment form. The tenant will be informed of the outcome of a medical application within 2 weeks. Band A applications must be approved by 2 housing managers. If a tenant has more than 1 factor qualifying them for a particular band, and the housing manager considers that the combination of reasons means they should receive a higher banding, they should make a recommendation to the lettings panel which has the final decision.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 2 working days. It will then issue a formal response within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. If a stage 1 complaint is about a local officer, it will be handled by their manager. Stage 2 reviews are carried out by an independent manager who was not involved in the stage 1 decision. The stage 2 responder will contact the complainant to discuss the outcome and give them a chance to ask questions. The complainant also has the option of having their complaint reviewed by an independent resident reviewer. In exceptional circumstances, any changes to the timescales above will be agreed with the complainant.
The landlord’s compensation policy and procedure states that it will ensure residents are compensated fairly where they have been distressed or inconvenienced. Where a service failure has occurred, it may make a discretionary compensation payment of up to £250. In exceptional circumstances, where there have been multiple failures or the resident has experienced extreme hardship, it may offer higher levels of compensation (if agreed by management).

Summary of events

On 29 March 2022 the resident’s GP documented that she reported new onset of anxiety as a result of abuse she was experiencing from her neighbour. The GP stated in a letter that the resident “would likely benefit from new accommodation to prevent further deterioration of her mental health”.
On 31 March 2022 the resident contacted her housing officer about ASB she was experiencing from her neighbour above (‘Neighbour A’). The reported behaviour consisted of noise from banging and rap music, verbal abuse, offensive gestures, damage to the communal staircase, leaving rubbish outside the resident’s property, intimidating behaviour, and cannabis smoking. The resident told the landlord that some of the issues had been going on since 2020, and that she believed Neighbour A was in breach of their tenancy agreement. She also noted that there had been police involvement and said she was scared to leave her property. In an email dated 5 April 2022, the resident’s housing officer said they were concerned about her safety and had met with their manager and a legal colleague to discuss the case. However, the housing officer left their role soon afterwards and it appears that no further action was taken at the time.
On 1 June 2022 and/or 1 August 2022, a different housing officer visited the resident in relation to the neighbour issues she was experiencing. The officer also visited Neighbour A. However, according to the resident, this again did not result in any significant improvement in the ASB.
On 4 October 2022, in an email to a third housing officer, the resident referred to issues with Neighbour A spitting and throwing items into her garden. The items thrown included condoms, cigarettes and a shower curtain. On 9 October 2022 the resident forwarded her email of 31 March 2022 to the same housing officer. She told the officer that her slippers, which she had left outside her door, had been cut with scissors on 3 occasions since she moved into the property. She said this was “not normal”. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s emails of 4 and 9 October 2022.
On 4 November 2022 the resident’s GP documented that the resident reported ongoing anxiety and panic attacks due to the situation involving her neighbours. They repeated their assessment that she would benefit from new accommodation.
The resident contacted her housing officer’s manager on 2 March 2023 to make a formal complaint. She stated that:
1. She wanted to complain about ASB by Neighbour A, which had affected her human right to enjoy her property peacefully as well as her safety and mental health.
2. She had previously reported the issues to a housing officer who was responsive, but left their role shortly afterwards. Another housing officer had visited her and Neighbour A, but nothing changed and the ASB continued.
3. She had called and emailed her current housing officer numerous times over the past year regarding the ASB, but had not received a single response.
4. The police had also emailed her housing officer in December 2022, but advised on 17 and 30 December 2022 that they had received no response.
5. She believed her housing officer was failing to uphold their duty of care. This had caused her further emotional distress.
6. According to the landlord’s complaints policy, her housing officer’s line manager needed to deal with her complaint as the housing officer was involved in the complaint.
7. Over the past 2 years she and her children had been affected by ASB consisting of littering, noise nuisance in the evening and early hours, dog fouling, drug use and dealing, repeated bathroom flooding, Neighbour A and their visitors congregating outside her property, verbal abuse, and a physical assault. Some particularly distressing incidents had involved ambulance attendance following an incident of domestic violence where a female was bleeding, Neighbour A’s son stabbing the staircase with a knife, a masked person throwing eggs at her door, and Neighbour A’s relative swearing at her camera and calling her a “slapper”. Neighbour A’s relative had also approached her teenage daughter in an aggressive manner.
8. The ASB affected her daily life in many ways. The banging was so loud that the light fitting in her living room shook, and it prevented her family from watching TV and sleeping. She was scared to leave her property when people were gathered outside her door. She was concerned about hygiene when Neighbour A spat. She had been prescribed tablets for anxiety and depression by her GP, who had also provided a medical letter. She had given this to her housing officer but received no response.
9. She had video evidence of the ASB, but was mindful that videos took up a lot of memory on a computer or other device. She could show the videos to the landlord in person or send them using an online data sharing platform.
10. On 27 February 2023 the previous tenant of her property had visited to collect a parcel and said they had been affected by the same issues. They were shocked that the situation was ongoing. The resident was appalled that Neighbour A had been allowed to behave in the same way for years. If she had known, she would not have accepted the property.
On 7 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord again in relation to her complaint. She described being subjected to “2 years of grave ASB” which had affected the safety and health of herself and her children. She asked for the matter to be “dealt with accordingly and with policy and procedures in mind”. The same day, an internal email by the landlord requested that the housing officer contacted the resident to arrange an appointment. The housing officer was also asked to raise an ASB case on the landlord’s system and keep a record of all actions and evidence.
On 18 March 2023 the resident told the landlord she had not received any help or response to her complaint, which she felt was “unprofessional”. She said that, as it had been more than 10 working days since she complained, she would like her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure.
On 20 March 2023 the landlord apologised for “any delay here” and explained that the resident’s housing officer had been “off for a few days”. It said it would contact her later that day. The landlord subsequently spoke to the resident’s representative on the phone, but documented that this was “not productive” as the representative was accusing the landlord of not following policy or dealing with Neighbour A decisively. In a further email to the resident, the landlord repeated its apology for its lack of response to her previous emails and requests and confirmed that it would “make sure this is dealt with going forward”. It said it had now raised an ASB case and formal complaint on its systems. It also said it would ask the resident’s housing officer to arrange a visit to discuss the ASB.
In a more detailed internal note dated 20 March 2023, which referred to the phone call with the resident’s representative, the landlord stated that “if [the resident] was already being targeted, there could be further or more intense retaliation if [it] addressed this with the perpetrators”. The landlord went to say that it felt “it would be irresponsible to take any action against the perpetrators if they were able to deduce that it was instigated by [the resident]”, which seemed “entirely likely and possible”. The note also stated that the resident’s representative was not willing to agree for the landlord to meet with the resident, saying she was too ill and upset. However, the landlord felt this was unreasonable and not in the resident’s best interests.
Later on 20 March 2023, the resident replied to the landlord and clarified that she preferred “documented communication and no more home visits”. She explained that home visits made her anxious as she had to repeat information, which scared her more, and that was why the police had intervened. She provided an update on recent incidents of music, banging, Neighbour A’s visitors congregating outside her door, cannabis smoking, suspected drug dealers visiting, and an incident where Neighbour A threw a scooter at their guest. She also provided 4 police reference numbers and noted that the previous tenant of her property had also been affected by Neighbour A’s behaviour.
On 23 March 2023 the landlord told the resident it was sorry she felt she had been ignored. It said it had reviewed previous correspondence and now had a better understanding of the case. It then said that, while it was happy to confirm the content of discussions via email, it felt the best way forward was to meet with the resident. It understood the previous housing officer had been unable to do this. It advised that “in order for us to progress this case, we have to have a conversation” and “without meeting, we are a little lost”. It also said it needed a meeting in order to gain the resident’s authority to discuss her case with her daughter.
In its email, the landlord told the resident it was keen to speak to Neighbour A but needed to discuss this with her first. It suggested visiting the resident at home and said it would be sensitive to her anxiety. It also confirmed what would and would not be included in the formal complaint.
The landlord then issued its stage 1 response the same day (23 March 2023). This stated that:
1. It was sorry to hear that the resident was unhappy with the service she had received.
2. It could not address reports of ASB through its complaints process. This was in line with its complaints policy. Instead, its response would focus on its handling of the resident’s ASB case.
3. It did not have records of previous ASB cases on its system. With regard to the current case, it could see that the resident had emailed her housing officer on 4 and 9 October 2022. It was clear from her emails and the lack of response that the landlord did not address the issues as it should have, and that it failed to follow its policy.
4. It had found no evidence that it had addressed any of the resident’s concerns – which included items thrown into her garden and left in the communal area, noise at unsociable hours, and people behaving antisocially in the communal area – or that it replied to the police when they contacted it.
5. It apologised for not dealing with the case in an effective manner and in accordance with its policy. It was sorry for the distress and inconvenience this may have caused the resident.
6. It had raised an ASB case on its system, and any updates would be recorded on this case until it was closed.
7. The first step to resolving the ASB case was to meet to discuss the case, possible ways to address it, and actions available. It knew the resident had had meetings in the past which had added to her anxiety, but it urged her to agree to meet with it again. It was happy to meet her at her home.
8. It had addressed the lack of action with the resident’s housing officer, who had also apologised for the lack of response. Due to data protection, it was unable to share any more about this.
9. It offered compensation of £250, comprising:
  1. £125 for its service failure of not addressing the ASB case in a timely manner or in line with its policy;
  2. £125 for the distress and inconvenience caused by this.
10. It would also address the need for its staff to record ASB cases on its system, which would prompt it to action them and alert managers when cases were not being managed effectively.
11. It asked the resident to contact its stage 1 responder in relation to accepting compensation, and separately in relation to progressing her ASB case. In addition, it asked her to contact it within 20 days if she would like the stage 1 response to be reviewed by another colleague at the final stage of its complaints process.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 26 March 2023. She gave the following reasons:
1. The landlord had ignored her emails of 2 and 7 March 2023, but on 7 March 2023 it forwarded her complaint about her housing officer to the housing officer in question. She felt this was “absurd” as the complaint was intended for the housing officer’s manager to read, not the housing officer themselves. She also felt it took away her confidentiality in reporting.
2. On 7 March 2023 the landlord asked the housing officer to call her. At the same time, it was ignoring her complaint and would not acknowledge it. This was unprofessional. Rather than making the housing officer call her as if nothing had happened, the landlord should have dealt with her complaint. It only confirmed it had addressed the complaint with the housing officer 3 weeks later.
3. After she asked to escalate her complaint on 18 March 2023, the landlord’s housing manager called her on 20 March 2023 and was “very rude”. They asked her why she was concerned about complaint stages, then said they were too busy to handle ASB cases. This was again unprofessional. The resident felt that if she did not keep emailing, an ASB investigation would not have taken place, which was unfair.
4. On 17 January 2023 she had called the landlord’s customer service centre and told them about the ASB. She also mentioned that her housing officer never answered the phone. The call taker said they had notified her housing officer on the system and would open an ASB case, but this did not happen and the housing officer did not contact her.
5. Having asked the housing officer to raise an ASB case on 7 March 2023, the housing manager later said they had raised one on 20 March 2023. This showed that the housing officer had not raised a case, as if they had, the manager would not have had to do it 13 days later.
6. The housing officer should have opened a case 7 months ago. She questioned why nobody was following procedures and keeping records.
7. Her health and wellbeing had deteriorated significantly and she was unable to meet with the landlord. She would have met with it when she asked for its help a year ago. She had met with previous housing officers to no avail, which was disappointing.
8. She had recently requested to meet and asked about sharing video evidence on 2 March 2023, but the landlord did not reply and this caused further delays. She also felt that, due to the housing manager’s rudeness on 20 March 2023, everything needed to be documented for transparency.
9. She felt the stage 1 response was unclear and “downplayed everything”. For example, it said she had emailed her housing officer twice, but did not mention her forwarded email. It also implied that the police had sent just 1 email, not several over the course of a month, and disregarded the medical evidence she had provided.
10. She also felt the response was vague about the ASB. For instance, references to “littering” did not reflect the extent of the issue. The items thrown into her garden included alcohol bottles, cigarettes, eggs, half cut oranges, juice boxes, avocado skin, men’s boxers, socks, drug packets and used condoms.
11. Neighbour A’s relative had hit her youngest daughter, who was under 18. This resulted in the police being called. The police had wanted to meet with the landlord to help resolve the situation, but the housing officer again ignored their emails.
12. She felt the landlord’s lack of records relating to previous ASB cases amounted to negligence. She asked for the housing officer’s manager to handle her case going forward, as she did not believe the housing officer would take it seriously. She also asked the landlord to take action to stop the ASB and to let her know what action it would take.
On 26 and 27 March 2023, the resident sent the landlord video and audio evidence of ASB incidents involving Neighbour A. These included incidents of domestic violence and suspected drug dealing. The resident also sent the landlord a GP letter, a written history of ASB and noise by Neighbour A, and evidence of the previous tenant of her property being affected. She noted that Neighbour A had flooded their bathroom more than 10 times since she moved in, which had caused her property to be affected by mould and resulted in her lights being off for a month. She said she wanted to move.
On 28 March 2023 the landlord sent the resident a transfer request form to complete. It confirmed it had reviewed the evidence provided and “could see why this is a problem”. It said it would request information from the police, and asked if any more information was available from the local authority in relation to noise. The resident asked some questions about the transfer process, which the landlord answered on 29 March 2023. It said it could not confirm what level of priority the transfer request would be given.
The resident submitted a transfer application on 2 April 2023. This stated that she was requesting to be moved on medical grounds. The application summarised the reported ASB, which the resident described as “terrifying and unacceptable” and caused her to be “sleep deprived, anxious and severely depressed”. A further letter from the resident’s GP, dated 30 March 2023 and included with the transfer application, referred to the resident’s worsening anxiety, panic attacks, low mood and inability to sleep as a consequence of the ASB. It also said that the ASB was traumatising the resident and exacerbating her PTSD, and that she had been prescribed sleeping tablets and antidepressants.
Also on 2 April 2023, the resident sent the landlord details of further ASB incidents. An internal email by the landlord on 3 April 2023 asked the resident’s housing officer to complete a transfer approval form and send it that week.
On 4 April 2023 the landlord asked the resident’s daughter how it could contact the resident, noting that it had sent an email but this had bounced back. It repeated this request on 27 April 2023. The resident’s daughter replied that the resident was ill and would not be meeting with the landlord in person. She pointed out that she had provided a consent document as she was advocating on her mother’s behalf. She said the landlord had been rude to her in the resident’s presence, which was why she had asked for everything to be in writing. She requested an update on the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 2 May 2023. It said it was sorry the request was missed previously, explaining that “it sounded like you had escalated this with someone else and then later had [an] MP enquiry”. It confirmed that the complaint had been escalated to stage 2, and asked what outcomes the resident sought.
On 21 May 2023 the resident told the landlord the outcomes she sought were for the housing manager (rather than her housing officer) to deal with her ASB case and transfer request, and a move as soon as possible. She apologised for her delayed reply, explaining that she had been awaiting a response to her MP enquiry. She re-sent the 3 letters from her GP, together with a letter from her local Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) service dated 3 May 2023. This referred to a triage assessment on 28 April 2023, the resident’s severe anxiety and depression, her reports of suicidal thoughts, and treatment to reduce nightmares and flashbacks.
The resident’s representative told the landlord on 21 May 2023 that she had been trying to help the resident cope, alongside her medication, and the resident now felt more able to have an online meeting with the landlord. The representative provided details of the resident’s availability on 23 and 24 May 2023. She also provided an impact statement by the resident, which said she had been struggling to cope for the last 2 years, hardly left her bed, and did not feel safe. It ended: “Please help me move, I can’t live like this anymore.”
Having received no reply, the resident emailed the landlord again on 9 June 2023. She asked for a response to her email of 21 May 2023 and an update on her stage 2 complaint. She described continued incidents of noise, rubbish being thrown into her garden and onto her windowsill, and drugs being stored in the communal electric cupboard. She also noted that the front door was broken and insecure. The landlord replied the same day, apologising for its late response. It said its housing manager had been away for several weeks and returned the week before. It agreed to an online meeting and said it would try to fit in with when the resident was available. In response to the medical information, it attached a self-assessment form and asked the resident to complete it. It also said its housing manager’s unexpected absence had delayed the stage 2 response.
On 11 June 2023 the resident provided her availability for an online meeting on 13 or 15 June 2023. She asked the landlord to clarify that she needed to complete a self-assessment even though she had already submitted a transfer request. At the landlord’s request, she also described the front door issue.
The landlord again did not reply, and the resident emailed it again on 22 June 2023. She said it was “approaching 2 weeks without a response” and she was “desperate to be helped”. The landlord replied the same day, apologising for its lack of contact and advising that its housing manager would again be away until 6 July 2023. It suggested meeting with the manager on 7 or 11 July 2023, or with another officer sooner. The resident repeated her question about the self-assessment, and the landlord advised that this related to applications for a move on medical grounds (which were considered by an independent assessment group).
On 16 July 2023 the landlord emailed the resident, noting that “we have not spoken for a while” and it was “concerned that the case is not being dealt with as it should be”. It again asked to meet with her in order to “agree a path forward and take immediate action”. It suggested a meeting on 18 or 21 July 2023. On 17 July 2023, the resident replied that the landlord had twice ignored her attempts to meet with it. She said the case had been “handled appallingly” and she had had to get her MP involved just to receive a reply. In its MP response, she felt the landlord had blamed her for the lack of progress as she had not met with it. She agreed to a meeting later the same day at 3pm.
A note by the landlord, logged at 3.03pm on 17 July 2023, stated that it had spoken to the resident regarding her ASB case and attempted to carry out a risk assessment. The note said the resident told the landlord she did not wish to speak about it and asked it to call her representative. The landlord tried to call the resident’s representative but there was no answer, so it left a voicemail.
On 19 July 2023 the landlord’s housing manager emailed the resident after returning from leave. They said they would prefer to meet face-to-face, but would settle for an online meeting if that was more comfortable for the resident. They queried the resident’s reference to a meeting on 17 July 2023 and instead suggested a meeting on 21 or 31 July 2023. They also offered to ask a colleague to conduct the meeting.
The same day (19 July 2023), an internal email by the landlord referred to the urgency of the resident’s case and asked a different housing officer to complete a transfer approval form. A further internal email dated 26 July 2023 confirmed that the housing officer had spoken to the resident. They had asked the resident to re-send her medical evidence, which she agreed to, and explained the transfer process.
A note by the landlord dated 23 August 2023 stated that it had interviewed the resident over the phone, carried out a risk assessment, and received evidence of the ASB via email. A further note dated 30 August 2023 stated that the ASB case was closed as the landlord was unable to take legal action, but it was supporting the resident’s application for a Band A move “to escape the ASB that has become unbearable”. On 31 August 2023 the landlord sent the resident its draft comments in support of her transfer application, and confirmed that it had incorporated changes she suggested. It then submitted the application to its panel the same day. It told the resident its panel would meet on 7 September 2023 and it should receive feedback by 18 September 2023.
On 11 September 2023 the resident sent the landlord a letter from the local authority in response to a request she had made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This referred to ASB and noise reports involving Neighbour A’s property between 2008 and 2020. The landlord forwarded evidence provided by the resident internally on 12 September 2023.
The records provided indicate that the landlord’s panel heard the resident’s transfer request on 13 September 2023. An internal email dated 19 September 2023 stated that the request had been approved. The approval was initially assigned to the wrong address, but subsequently corrected on 20 September 2023.
After reviewing a complaint pack produced on 15 September 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 10 October 2023. This stated:
1. It had compiled a detailed review pack which was sent to an independent reviewer. The reviewer was a colleague who had not previously been involved in the complaint. Taking their feedback into consideration, it concluded:
  1. It did not correctly follow its procedures when the resident initially raised reports of ASB;
  2. It delayed in processing her transfer application;
  3. Its communication was repeatedly and persistently poor;
  4. It had also handled her complaint poorly.
2. In relation to ASB, its failure to log or progress the resident’s reports between October 2022 and March 2023 was a serious service failure. This had been addressed directly with the housing officer at the time. It had since improved the way it managed ASB cases by having its customer service centre assist in logging cases, and by changing the way it reported on cases to give managers better oversight.
3. In relation to the transfer application, there was an unacceptable delay in progressing the application after it was initially submitted in March 2023. While it could see that the application had now been processed and the resident had been awarded Band A priority for a move, the time taken to reach this point had been well in excess of its expected standards.
4. In relation to communication, there were prolonged periods where this was poor. In particular, between October 2022 and March 2023, it did not return numerous calls and emails by the resident. This would have undoubtedly caused considerable stress and frustration.
5. In relation to complaint handling, its substantial delay in responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint constituted a further service failure.
6. It apologised for the above failures and offered increased compensation of £1,075, comprising:
  1. £125 for its delay in progressing the resident’s ASB case;
  2. £125 for its lack of clarity when explaining its procedure around the requirement to meet to discuss her ASB case;
  3. £75 for its delay in progressing her transfer application;
  4. £600 for its poor communication (calculated at a rate of £100 per month over a 6-month period);
  5. £150 for its delayed stage 2 complaint response.
7. In summary, it fully accepted there had been substantial service failures in relation to the resident’s ASB case and transfer application, as well as poor communication throughout. It recognised the impact that these failures would have had on the resident, for which it again apologised.

Post complaint

Having initially contacted the Ombudsman in July 2023, the resident referred her complaint to this Service on 16 October 2023. She explained that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 response as it did not consider various points, namely:
1. Previous lack of action by the landlord in March and June 2022.
2. The fact that the relevant housing manager knew about everything that had happened, but kept ignoring her emails.
3. The fact that the landlord had moved a victim of domestic violence into a property where it knew there were ASB issues.
4. The landlord’s failure to deal effectively with Neighbour A’s behaviour, despite the local authority’s records indicating issues since 2013.
5. She felt the compensation offered did not reflect the serious nature of the ASB, the extent of the landlord’s failure by the time of its stage 2 response, or its continued failure (as she continued to live in the property and experience ASB). This had recently driven her to harm herself.
On 30 October 2023 the landlord requested information from the police in relation to the resident’s ASB case. Having received no reply, it chased this on 1 December 2023. It also noted on 1 December 2023 that it was monitoring the ASB and that there had been no reports for the past 2 months. The police provided the information requested on 31 December 2023. They noted that the information request had been sent to the wrong email address and provided contact details for any future requests.
In updates provided to this Service in April 2024, the landlord advised that:
1. It was unclear why the resident’s initial reports of ASB in October 2022 were not responded to promptly. At one point, its housing officer had a period of leave that was not adequately covered.
2. It had then been limited in its ability to address the ASB as the resident had requested that it did not approach the perpetrators.
3. It had been unable to locate a copy of the risk assessment referred to in its records.
4. Its limited investigation of the ASB had not affected the outcome, as it had accepted the resident’s reports “at face value” and approved her transfer request.
5. It did not believe a thorough review of the block was carried out at the time the resident transferred to the property in December 2019. However, previous reports relating to Neighbour A’s property concerned noise rather than violence, drug dealing or intimidating behaviour.
6. At the time of the resident’s complaint, it did not have a vulnerability policy or procedure in place.
7. Its housing team had recently completed ASB training with a specialist who would be working with it closely from now on. This training covered the importance of good record keeping and applying processes correctly.
The resident informed this Service on 5 April 2024 that she was still experiencing ASB from Neighbour A and had not yet been moved. She felt the ASB had affected her daughters’ educational attainment as they had struggled to sleep and revise for exams.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Under paragraph 42a of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member landlord’s complaints process. The resident’s concerns about mould in her property therefore fall outside the scope of this investigation. This is because, while the resident mentioned Neighbour A flooding their property in her complaint, she did not refer to mould being a consequence of this until later. The landlord therefore did not have the opportunity to address the mould issue within its stage 1 complaint response. The resident has the option of making a further complaint to the landlord regarding its handling of this matter, which she may subsequently refer to this Service if she is dissatisfied with its final response.
Likewise, under paragraph 42f of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning matters where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. The Ombudsman is unable to determine whether a landlord’s action or inaction caused or worsened a health condition. Such matters are best suited for investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim, and so fall outside the scope of the current investigation. However, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health has been considered.

ASB reports

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was characterised by delays, poor record keeping, and poor communication. While it appears some action was taken following reports made by the resident in March, June and/or August 2022, this was not adequately documented. The landlord then failed to acknowledge or take any action in response to written and verbal reports from the resident on 4 October 2022, 9 October 2022 and 17 January 2023, as well as contact from the police on 3 occasions in December 2022. This was at odds with its ASB policy – which stated that ASB reports should be responded to within 5 working days and that it would work in partnership with other agencies – and was unacceptable. It is unclear whether the resident would have received any response to her reports if she had not gone on to make a formal complaint in March 2023 (discussed below).
Once the landlord had received the resident’s complaint and transferred her ASB case to a manager, it delayed further in logging an ASB case, responding to her enquiry about sending video evidence, logging and processing the associated transfer request, and deciding how to deal with the reported ASB. Its communication with the resident between March and October 2023 continued to be poor, with updates either significantly delayed, provided following numerous chase emails, or absent altogether. This caused avoidable distress and uncertainty to the resident, who was vulnerable. Specific areas of failure, together with the causes and effects of these, are detailed in the following paragraphs.
After receiving the resident’s complaint on 2 March 2023, the landlord asked its housing officer to contact the resident and open an ASB case on 7 March 2023. However, it later said its housing manager had opened a case on 20 March 2023. This indicated not only that the housing officer had failed to open a case, but also that this was not followed up for almost 2 weeks. A similar delay related to the resident’s transfer request, which the landlord received on 2 April 2023. It first asked its housing officer to log the request on 3 April 2023, but as this was apparently not done, it repeated the request on 19 July 2023. In the intervening weeks, its communications in relation to a medical self-assessment were confusing, especially as the resident had requested a medical move in her original application. The delay of almost 5 months in submitting the application was excessive, and affected the resident’s ‘priority date’ when she was later granted a transfer. A further instance of inaccurate record keeping resulted in the transfer being initially linked to the wrong property (and the road name being misspelt); this error was not identified and corrected until the officer who had submitted the transfer request was made aware of the outcome the following day. The landlord’s overall handling of the transfer request, including its confusing explanations regarding the self-assessment and the overall 6-month timeframe of the transfer request being heard and processed by its panel, fell below this Service’s expectations.
During the timeframe assessed, there is no evidence that the landlord attempted any action to address the reported ASB, which it agreed was a “problem”. Its justification for this, both internally and to this Service, was that the resident asked it not to approach Neighbour A. However, there is no record of the resident requesting this. There are numerous references to the landlord’s housing manager having the opinion that any action could lead to retaliation, but their notes – for example, following a phone conversation with the resident’s representative on 20 March 2023 – did not always appear to fully reflect what was discussed. The resident had previously been happy for the landlord to visit Neighbour A in connection with the reported issues in June and/or August 2022, so Neighbour A would have been aware of the landlord’s knowledge and involvement. In addition, the resident specifically asked the landlord on 26 March 2023 to stop the ASB and let her know what action it intended to take. It was therefore inappropriate for the landlord to base its decision solely on what it “strongly felt” should be done and its speculation as to the possible outcome.
A note by the landlord on 30 August 2023 stated that it had closed the resident’s ASB case as it was unable to take legal action, but there is again no confirmation that it had determined this on the basis of the available evidence, that it had sought legal advice, or that it had discussed its decision with the resident or taken her preferences into account. It also apparently did not inform her of the case closure. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord used the resident’s vulnerability and the possibility of retaliation as an excuse for taking no effective action to deal with the ASB. This constituted a departure from its ASB policy, which states that it will use early intervention tools to tackle ASB and consider legal action if there is evidence of a tenancy breach. It also unfairly excluded the resident from decisions relating to her case.
Since the resident did not specifically complain about the landlord’s original decision to offer the property to her (other than noting that she would not have accepted the property if she had known about Neighbour A’s history of ASB), the Ombudsman is limited in the extent to which this aspect can be assessed. The landlord’s ASB procedure provides for sensitive lets in circumstances where another resident in the immediate area is committing ASB. Its ASB and allocation policies additionally state that a sensitive let may be implemented where the new tenant may be at risk of harm. Since the landlord had knowledge of the resident’s previous experiences of domestic violence and neighbour issues, it would have been appropriate for it to have considered a sensitive let. However, since the exact nature and recency of ASB reports prior to December 2019 cannot be established from the records provided – and in the absence of any guidance regarding the period to be assessed when considering a sensitive let – no conclusive finding can be made in relation to this.
The landlord further noted that the reports it had received prior to the resident’s tenancy commencing concerned noise rather than violent or intimidating behaviour. In view of this, its assessment at the point of letting the property may have been appropriate based on the information available, although it could potentially have done more to ensure the property was suitable for the resident in view of her vulnerability. It later agreed that no “thorough review of the block” was carried out before the property was offered to the resident, but there is no indication that it admitted this to the resident or offered any redress for the omission.
According to the resident, the landlord’s housing manager was rude to her on 20 March 2023, asking why she was concerned about complaint stages and telling her they were too busy to handle ASB cases themselves. There is no documentary evidence of these comments, as they were allegedly made during a telephone conversation. However, the landlord later told the resident that the call was “not productive” and documented in an internal note that it “did not go well”. It is therefore clear that there was some disagreement during the call. The Ombudsman notes that the things reportedly said to the resident by the landlord’s housing manager were both inappropriate and unhelpful. This Service expects landlords to take complaints seriously (discussed in more detail below) and manage their resources effectively in order to address reports of ASB in line with policy.
While a manager may not usually have handled an ASB case, the housing manager in question was also the landlord’s stage 1 responder and so had reason to be involved. Their level of correspondence with the resident also created an expectation that they would deal with aspects of the ASB case, and indeed, subsequent correspondence shows that they went on to do so. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to initiate a positive relationship with the resident. Instead, the relationship was adversarial from the outset, which was to the detriment of the resident’s experience. Though the Ombudsman cannot say for certain what comments were made by the landlord’s manager, it is understandable that the resident would have lost confidence in the landlord’s response as a result of the comments described, and that her representative would consequently have felt reluctant to facilitate a meeting.
Related to the resident’s concerns about rudeness were some other alleged staff conduct and availability issues. The resident complained that her housing officer (who she had contacted about ongoing ASB in October 2022) had ignored her emails and calls for 7 months. The landlord acted appropriately by confirming that it had addressed the matter directly with the officer in question; it would have been unable to share further detail regarding this due to data protection. However, it later told this Service that the delay was due in part to the housing officer having “a period of [leave] that was not adequately covered”. This was presumably in March 2023, when the landlord told the resident her housing officer had been “off for a few days” but was back that day. The Ombudsman disagrees that an absence lasting a few days would have had any significant impact on the landlord’s response to the resident’s ASB reports, or the overall scale of its delays.
It is noted that the housing manager who took over the resident’s case was absent from work from 9 May 2023 to 2 June 2023, and again from 23 June 2023 to 5 July 2023. Following their return, they then had limited availability in July 2023, by which time the resident’s housing officer was on parental leave. Though individual staff members are of course entitled to leave, the landlord should have ensured mechanisms were in place to enable it to deliver a consistent service during periods of absence as well as high service demand. This necessity was reinforced when further staff absence prevented some of the information requested by the Ombudsman from being provided in a timely way. Effective record keeping would have allowed the information to be located without calling upon a specific member of staff, and an order has been made to address this.
A further point of significant contention in this case was the landlord’s insistence on a meeting with the resident. This appeared to have 2 causes: firstly the ASB policy’s requirement for the landlord to offer a visit and arrange an interview, and secondly the landlord’s concerns about the resident’s representative. Each of these will be considered in turn.
The landlord’s ASB policy does not require it to meet in person with residents who report ASB. It states that a visit should be offered within 5 working days, and that an interview should be organised. The interview may be over the phone or a video call. In the resident’s case, it is appreciated that the landlord may have felt a visit would be beneficial, particularly to help it understand the layout of the location and witness some of the issues for themselves (such as rubbish and possibly noise). However, its tackling of the ASB should not have been conditional upon the resident agreeing to a visit. The Ombudsman notes that the resident suggested a meeting to show the landlord her video evidence on 2 March 2023, and that she had met with a previous housing officer in June and/or August 2022. In view of her disability and willingness to communicate by email, together with her concerns about staff rudeness, it is understandable that the resident felt a further visit was unnecessary. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have accommodated this and treated her communication preferences as a reasonable adjustment.
Rather than doing so, the landlord persisted in requiring a meeting, even after the resident explained that home visits and repeating information made her anxious. This inflexible approach demonstrated a lack of understanding of her needs and concerns. As a result of its continued demands, the resident provided her availability for a meeting on 3 occasions (21 May 2023, 11 June 2023 and 17 July 2023). It is apparent that she felt considerable pressure to do so, which was unsatisfactory. On each occasion, the landlord either failed to reply or sent confusing communications which resulted in no productive meeting taking place. During an interview that was eventually carried out over the phone on 23 August 2023, the landlord documented that it completed a risk assessment, but did not document the outcome. It was then unable to provide a copy of the risk assessment to this Service, indicating that the document may not have been adequately recorded or used to inform subsequent actions. The landlord went on to close the resident’s ASB case a week later, apparently without informing the resident that it had done so or why. This conflicted with its policy and would have further undermined the landlord-tenant relationship.
Significantly, at the point of closing the ASB case on 30 August 2023, the landlord did not know whether the resident’s transfer request would be approved, meaning that the resident could potentially be left in an intolerable situation with no prospect of a move. This constituted a further serious failure. In view of the serious nature of the ASB, which had included physical assaults on the resident and her teenage daughter, a temporary decant or offer of hotel accommodation could have been considered. This would have been a proportionate response to the avoidable delay of the transfer request. While the offer of alternative accommodation may not have been possible, it would have been good practice for the landlord to explore all options within its remit and assure the resident of this.
With regard to the resident’s representative, the landlord’s ASB procedure and complaints policy confirm that a third party may make a report or complaint on a tenant’s behalf if they give consent. The complaints policy (but not the ASB procedure) states that this consent must be given in writing. As no record of written permission has been provided to this Service for inspection, the landlord should have been clear with the resident from the outset whether it had sufficient confirmation of her permission for it to discuss her case with her representative. If it did not, it should have told her what it needed and followed this up. Instead, it responded to emails from the resident’s representative (whose email address contained their name), including the initial ASB report on 31 March 2022 and the complaint on 2 March 2023. It also openly corresponded with the representative about the ASB case and complaint, including a phone call on 20 March 2023, apparently while not holding sufficient confirmation of authority. This created an expectation that it would continue to do so.
Though the landlord documented its concerns about some correspondence being sent by the representative but written as if from the resident on 20 March 2023, it did not raise this with the representative until 4 April 2023. The representative confirmed on 27 April 2023 that the resident had provided a consent document. The landlord did not record any concerns about this until 2 May 2023, having accepted an escalation request from the representative in the meantime. Although it said it would like to verify the letter of authority with the resident, there is no evidence that it made further efforts to do so. It subsequently made significant decisions affecting the resident, concerning her ASB case and transfer request, without requiring further proof of authority. This indicated a confusing and contradictory approach. Furthermore, had the landlord’s concerns about the resident’s representative proved to be justified, making such decisions without establishing the resident’s agreement could have had far-reaching negative consequences. The landlord was obliged by the Care Act 2014, as well as its safeguarding policies, to empower residents to make their own decisions and give informed consent.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord was placed in the difficult position of needing to progress a delayed ASB report, but also wishing to confirm that the resident agreed to the necessary action as the tenant of the property. It was also evidently mindful of her vulnerability. However, if it had a clear process for authorising a representative, it should have followed this swiftly and consistently from the outset. Continuing to liaise with the representative, while periodically expressing concern and using this as justification for delayed responses, frustrated its aim of progressing the ASB case and caused prolonged distress to both the resident and her representative. A recommendation has been made for the authorisation process to be clearer, and for guidance to be provided to staff regarding the form that such authorisation should take (for example, a signed form).
Finally, it is acknowledged that the landlord recognised some of its failures in respect of the resident’s case and offered redress for these. At stage 1, it offered £250 (the maximum amount set out in its compensation policy) for its delayed response to the resident’s ASB reports and the distress and inconvenience caused as a result. Though lower than the Ombudsman would expect for a 6-month delay, this amount was in line with policy and was roughly proportionate to the period assessed. The landlord also rightly provided assurance that it had taken learning from its failures by improving its record keeping in relation to ASB cases.
By the time of the stage 2 response, a further 6 months had passed without resolution of the ASB issue, although the resident had been approved for a priority move. The landlord’s stage 2 offer of £925 in relation to the ASB case was appropriately increased, and a useful breakdown of the amount was provided. However, this did not appear to include the original award of £125 for distress and inconvenience made at stage 1. In addition, it was unsatisfactory for the landlord only to compensate the resident for poor communication over a 6-month period (October 2022 to March 2023), when she had experienced at least 12 months of communication issues (October 2022 to October 2023). The final offer of compensation is therefore deemed insufficient, and additional compensation has been ordered.
An overall finding of severe maladministration has been made in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. This is due to the landlord’s consistently poor communication, confused approach to the issue of representative authorisation, inadequate record keeping, and lack of effective action to address the reported ASB over a 12-month period. The finding also reflects the fact that the compensation offered did not reflect the extent or impact of these failures on a vulnerable resident, who was unwell and frightened to leave her home.

Complaint handling

The landlord delayed for 12 working days in logging the resident’s complaint. This exceeded the timeframe of 2 working days set out in its complaints policy. Furthermore, it only acknowledged the complaint after the resident had sent 3 emails (on 2, 7 and 18 March 2023). In the last of these, she requested escalation of her complaint due to the landlord’s lack of response. The landlord subsequently confirmed receipt of the complaint, but did not clarify that it needed to respond at stage 1 before it could escalate the complaint to stage 2. This resulted in confusion, with the resident later telling the landlord (on 26 March 2023) that she had already escalated her complaint.
Following its acknowledgement, the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 3 working days, which was acceptable. However, it is unclear why the landlord told the resident in an email dated 23 March 2023 that her complaint would be upheld, when it intended to issue its formal response later the same day. Perhaps as a result of the earlier communication and the ongoing correspondence between the resident and the stage 1 responder, the stage 1 response did not state whether the complaint was upheld. This was at odds with this Service’s complaint handling code.
The stage 1 response was otherwise appropriately detailed and apologetic. It was reasonable for the landlord to take the opportunity to explain the difference between a service request (report of ASB) and complaint (about the landlord’s handling of ASB reports). It offered adequate reassurance in response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct, as discussed above. However, the Ombudsman agrees that the landlord’s communication failures were downplayed in the response. The stage 1 responder said they had “seen no evidence of [the landlord] addressing any of your concerns or indeed contacting the police that emailed us too”; this minimised the number of contacts from the resident and police over a period of months.
Following the stage 1 response, the landlord delayed for 23 working days in acknowledging the resident’s escalation request. Its stage 2 response was then excessively delayed, and was issued 112 working days (23 weeks) after the complaint was escalated. This was unacceptable. In addition, it was misleading for the landlord to blame its housing manager’s absence for the delay, as the manager was its stage 1 responder and the stage 2 review was carried out by an independent manager. This may have indicated a further record keeping issue, with routine activities unable to proceed in the unexpected absence of a member of staff as referred to above.
The stage 2 response, though again appropriately apologetic, did not address the resident’s concern about her stage 1 complaint being shared with the housing officer whose conduct she had complained about. While sharing the complaint may have been necessary in order to investigate the matter complained about, it would have been good practice for the landlord to inform the resident of this before it did so. It also did not address the housing manager’s alleged rudeness. The response contained a typo or wording error (“there have been substantial service failures around both ASB case and transfer application were processed”) and would have benefited from proofreading to avoid confusion. While the landlord offered appropriately increased compensation, the £150 for its delayed stage 2 response did not reflect maximum impact. In addition, the response contained only 2 of the 4 recommendations listed in the stage 2 complaint review pack. Being transparent regarding learning – including additional ASB training for housing officers – would have given the resident some assurance that her concerns had been listened to and addressed.
A finding of maladministration has been made in relation to complaint handling, as while the landlord did some things well, its overall 7-month complaint process (including a 5-month delay at stage 2) far exceeded what the Ombudsman would expect. It also denied the resident the ability to refer her complaint to this Service at a time when her day-to-day quality of life was significantly impaired by targeted ASB. The redress offered in recognition of this was insufficient and disregarded the impact of the delay.
Due to the landlord’s recent update regarding specialist ASB training, no order has been made in relation to this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by her neighbour;
2. maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not respond to the resident’s reports of ASB between October 2022 and March 2023. After she complained, it delayed in opening an ASB case. It engaged with her representative but did not sufficiently or consistently follow up its concerns about the representative’s authority. Despite receiving evidence of the reported ASB, the landlord took no action to address it between March 2023 and August 2023, apparently on the basis of its own judgement rather than the resident’s wishes. It also delayed for 5 months in processing the resident’s transfer request and placed undue emphasis on a face-to-face meeting. The landlord unfairly blamed staff absence for continued delays and did not inform the resident when it closed its ASB case. Its communication and record keeping were poor throughout its handling of the case, and the compensation offered reflected only half of the relevant period.
The landlord delayed for 12 working days in logging the resident’s complaint, for 23 working days in acknowledging her escalation request, and for 112 working days in issuing its stage 2 response. This meant that its complaints process spanned 7 months, which was unacceptable and prolonged the resident’s distress. The landlord’s communication in relation to the complaint was poor, the final response did not address all the issues raised by the resident, and the compensation offered in relation to complaint handling was inadequate.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Reiterate its apology to the resident for its delays, poor communication, poor record keeping, and other failures in handling her ASB case and associated complaint. The apology should be made in writing by a member of staff of director level or above.
2. Pay the resident £3,000, comprising:
  1. £1,000 for its delays and inaction in response to her reports of ASB over a 12-month period, including its delayed transfer application;
  2. £1,200 for its poor communication over a 12-month period (calculated at a rate of £100 per month);
  3. £600 for its complaint handling failures;
  4. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of its delays, poor communication, and poor record keeping.

If the £1,075 (or other amount) previously offered by the landlord has been paid to the resident, this should be deducted from the total above, meaning that the difference is now due.

Establish whether it now has sufficient confirmation of the resident’s consent for it to liaise with her daughter on her behalf. If it does, it should inform the resident and her representative of this in writing and ensure its records are updated to reflect the authority. If it does not, it should clearly state what further confirmation it requires.
Provide a written update to the resident regarding her transfer request, including availability of the type of property she requires and the likely timescale. It should also provide details of any alternative rehousing routes that she may be able to explore, such as different housing providers and/or areas.
Contact the resident regarding any recent and/or ongoing ASB. If the issues are continuing and the resident is happy for the landlord to take action, it should open an ASB case (if it has not already done so) and allocate a single point of contact to deal with this and liaise with the resident. This officer should familiarise themselves with the circumstances of the case as well as the commitments set out in the landlord’s ASB policy. They should then agree a plan of action with the resident, update her at an agreed frequency (eg weekly or fortnightly) using her preferred method, and carry out a risk assessment. If the landlord intends to close the ASB case, it should discuss this with the resident first.
Provide to the resident details of the local ASB case review (community trigger) process, including the circumstances in which this process may be used.
Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.

The landlord is ordered to carry out a review of the resident’s case within 12 weeks of the date of this report. The review should consider record keeping, communication, ASB case management, complaint handling, and mechanisms that are in place to manage staff absence. It should provide a report outlining its findings and recommendations to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord introduces a form or alternative process for confirming authority of representatives, if it has not already done so. It should also consider amending its policies and/or website to include details of this process, and making the form available for residents to download and complete.