One Manchester Limited (201910630)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201910630

One Manchester Limited

30 August 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s decision to seek a court injunction against the resident in respect of her contact with her neighbours;
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be removed from the Rehousing Review List (RRL);
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that she only found out about allegations relating to her daughter when a case came to court;
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an overgrown garden in a neighbouring property;
5. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB);
6. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the behaviour of staff;
7. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs and recommendations following a gas safety report;
8. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.
This report will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, this service must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The landlord’s decision to seek a court injunction against the resident in respect of her contact with her neighbours;
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be removed from the Rehousing Review List (RRL);
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that she only found out about allegations relating to her daughter when a case came to court.
Paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where a complainant has raised, or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.

The landlord’s decision to seek a court injunction.

On 20 April 2020, the landlord applied to the County Court for an injunction to be taken out on the resident, which was applied by the court on 25 September 2020 and expired on 31 October 2021. As the Court granted this injunction, the Ombudsman is satisfied that this part of the resident’s complaint concerns a matter where she had the opportunity to raise her concerns as part of the legal proceedings.

The resident’s request to be removed from the Rehousing Review List (RRL).

The solicitors representing the landlord and resident reached an agreement on 26 April 2021 that included issues regarding the RRL, which was then approved by the court on 16 August 2021. As part of the agreement, the resident was removed from the RRL and her re-housing application was duly progressed. It is noted that, since the conclusion of the stage two complaint, she has moved and now lives at a different address.

The resident’s concerns that she only found out about allegations relating to her daughter when a case came to court.

The solicitors representing the landlord and resident reached an agreement on 26 April 2021 that included issues regarding the historic allegations, which was then approved by the court on 16 August 2021. As the matter was considered in Court, the Ombudsman is satisfied that this part of the resident’s complaint concerns a matter where she had the opportunity to raise her concerns as part of the legal proceedings.
The Ombudsman will not investigate a complaint that has been the subject to legal proceedings. This is because the court has made a decision on the matter and it would neither be fair or proportionate for the Ombudsman to consider the matter separately. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that this part of the complaint is also outside our jurisdiction to consider further.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident occupied her property with her daughter under an assured tenancy which began in May 2013. The landlord had recorded that she has mental health disabilities.
On 21 November 2019, the resident, through her solicitors, issued proceedings in the County Court for an order that the landlord carry out works throughout the premises, citing 19 repairs, and for damages (compensation). The claim also related to a recommendation following a gas safety inspection that a permanent vent was fitted in the kitchen. The landlord later confirmed that the disrepair claim for the property never went to court, but it is not clear why this was the case.

Legal and policy framework

The landlord’s “complaints process provides two opportunities to resolve complaints internally”. Response times for stage one and stage two complaints are 10 and 20 working days respectively. Stage one investigations “should include contact with the complainant (e.g. by telephone/email or face to face) as a matter of course. This includes providing the complainant with an opportunity to comment on any adverse findings before a final decision is made”.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it can make a discretionary payment of up to £250 if it is clearly responsible for a service failure. This includes cases of inconvenience, hardship, distress or a ‘making good’ payment.
The tenancy agreement states that: “Harassment and anti-social behaviour is any act or omission that interferes with the peace and comfort of, or which may cause nuisance, annoyance, injury or offence to any other tenants, members of their household, visitors, neighbours…or any other member of the general public. “This includes making unnecessary or excessive noise by any means whatsoever, including arguing and door slamming”.
The landlord’s Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) policy states that reported incidents will be treated seriously and dealt with professionally by:
1. Assessing and reassessing the issue reported and the risk to those experiencing it;
2. Recording and managing each case efficiently, effectively and appropriately;
3. Fully investigating all reports;
4. Promptly referring cases to other agencies for action or support as required.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
Section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies an obligation into the tenancy agreement that the landlord must ensure the property is ‘fit for human habitation‘ in relation to, by virtue of Section 10 of the same act, ventilation.

Summary of events

On 11 February 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to complain about racial abuse she suffered from other tenants, noise disturbance she had experienced at 3am and the landlord’s refusal to give permission for works to be carried out to rectify the problem of rats coming into her wall cavity. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 26 February 2020 and stated the following:

It confirmed that the reports of racial harassment were historic and that the alleged perpetrator had moved.
It said it had spoken to the neighbour regarding the noise disturbance and that the neighbour had ‘similarly complained of noise’ coming from the resident’s property. It said that the matter would be dealt with by the Community Safety team in accordance with their procedures.
It explained that the team within the Council that dealt with noise complaints were only able to visit to witness noise if they are available and that ‘unfortunately they do not always have the capacity to attend all calls made’. The landlord said it had checked with the Council, who confirmed it did not have any availability to attend calls on 29, 30 January and 10 February 2020.
The landlord said it had advised the resident in 2018 to contact the Council regarding the problem with rats, which was the normal procedure. It explained that, if any follow on works were needed, the Council would contact the landlord. It confirmed that the Council had not advised it of any works required to rectify the problem and it had not refused permission for any works to be carried out. It stated that, if the resident continued to have problems with rats and mice, she should contact the Pest Control team at the Council.

The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 March 2020 to say she had reported her neighbours several times but, despite this, it had not investigated her reports. She said she had to call the police because she was ‘feeling suicidal’ after being woken up by loud noise, music and screaming. She stated that she had contacted the out of hours team but the landlord had still done nothing. The resident wrote again on 5 March 2020 to report that she was, “now being threatened”.
On 6 March 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to say that, following her most recent report of ASB, she wanted to complain about ongoing loud music, screaming and singing from her neighbour’s property and suggested that the landlord visit and hear what the resident and her daughter had to put up with ‘night and day’. The resident sent a further email on the same day, reporting loud music from 5pm to 8pm the previous day, followed by shouting, banging, slamming of doors, loud music and singing from 9pm. She added that, from 8pm, there was banging, drilling, ‘stomping’ and noise from a washing machine coming from another neighbour’s property. She stated that the noise continued all night and was causing her and her daughter great distress.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 9 March 2020 to say that ASB by other tenants was ongoing and that she would continue to report all ASB to the landlord, even though she knew it would not take any action. She asked that the landlord did not contact her again unless it was to do with her neighbours’ ASB.
On 28 August 2020 an independent surveyor, instructed as a single joint expert on behalf of the landlord and resident, carried out an inspection of the property in order to prepare a report and Scott Schedule for the County Court as part of the resident’s disrepair claim. The survey found “a small degree of mould growth indicative of condensation” around one of the bedroom windows and advised that “the landlord installs a mechanical extract ventilation fan in the kitchen”, that the “shower is inspected by a qualified electrician” and that a gas safe engineer should check one of the radiators at the next annual safety check. The surveyor did not propose any other works.
On 12 July 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to say it had received a phone call from the police who informed it that she wished to report some problems she was having with her neighbour. It said: “If you could let me know what has been happening, I will make sure your report is passed onto our Community Safety team. Please provide me with as much detail as possible including dates and times of any incident”.
Following a telephone conversation between the landlord and resident, on 15 July 2021, the landlord wrote to her on the same day, giving a named point of contact with the Community Safety team. It confirmed it had spoken to the Community Safety team that morning and that they had agreed to install noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s home and would look to organise it the following week. It asked the resident if she could continue to make recordings via the noise app or, if this was not possible, on her mobile phone. It gave her an email address where she could send the recordings.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s solicitor on 7 September 2021 to say that the resident had been emailing it with various concerns. In response, it stated that it had secured the noise monitoring equipment and could install it. It asked the solicitor to confirm, within 14 days, if the resident still wished for the equipment to be installed, whereupon it would arrange a suitable time. It added: “In the meantime, if your client can send any recordings she or her daughter has, confirming the dates and times they were taken,” it would review them. It also asked for details of the reasonable adjustments the resident wanted it to make.
On 17 September 2021, the landlord sent the resident a stage one complaint response, which stated the following:

It stated that its gas team had confirmed that the most recent gas service was successfully completed on 1 September 2021, it found no issues and the gas supply was left running and uncapped.
It understood the resident had been in contact with the Community Safety team regarding noise disturbance and that she was waiting for the landlord to install noise monitoring equipment in her home. It advised there had been a delay in providing the equipment because it was being used in other properties. It confirmed it was ‘now available’ and that it was liaising with the resident’s solicitor to agree an installation date.
The landlord had asked the resident for specific details regarding the incidents she had reported, including times and dates. It encouraged her to use the noise app to report incidents to the Community Safety team and reminded her of the email address where she could send her recordings.
It apologised that it had sent the resident multiple copies of a text confirming the gas service appointment directly to her, and for the distress this caused. It explained that this was due to a ‘system glitch’ and the fact the appointment was created before the resident’s contact number was removed from the system, which led to the texts being sent automatically to her rather than her solicitor. It confirmed that this had been rectified so it would not happen again.

The resident responded on 4 November 2021 to say she had asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two and stated the following:

The landlord had only addressed certain issues and completely ignored the rest of the complaint.
She stated that she asked for reasonable adjustments, which were agreed to and that the landlord “have now decided they are offering me no support to move despite it being part of the court order and me requesting help under the Disability Act 2010”.
She said that the landlord was discriminating against her and was not supporting her to move. Her mental health was getting worse and, even though she had been given a support worker, the landlord was refusing to speak to them.
The resident stated she was being bullied and victimised by her landlord on a weekly basis and that, despite saying it would remove her telephone number from its system, it continued to call and text her directly.
She said the ASB was continuing on a daily basis and, despite reporting this to her landlord, it was not doing anything about it.
The landlord had failed to serve her neighbour with any legal notice about the state of her garden, even though it stated in the tenancy agreement that gardens should be kept in a reasonable condition.
The resident stated that the landlord was discriminating against her because of her ‘colour’ and her mental health conditions.

The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 November 2021 to acknowledge her stage two complaint and confirmed it would carry out its review on 25 November 2021. It offered to arrange a telephone discussion with her on that date and said that, if this was something she was interested in, to provide it with a telephone contact number. It also listed the issues that the stage two investigation would cover.
On 15 November 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to add further concerns that she wanted included in her stage two complaint, which related to allegations made as part of a historic court case, complaints she had made about various members of staff, outstanding repairs and the landlord’s failure to make reasonable adjustments. She asked for permission for the call to be recorded and for the recording to be sent to her no later than seven days after the call.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 25 November 2021 and then sent its stage two response on 1 December 2021, which stated the following:

It apologised that it had sent texts to her outside the contact agreement. It understood that the injunction had ended and that the landlord’s legal representative had contacted the resident’s solicitor to agree a new contact arrangement.
It said it had sent an email to the resident’s solicitor on 7 September 2021 explaining that it was able to install noise monitoring equipment and asked them to confirm within 14 days whether she was happy for this to be installed so it could agree a suitable date. The landlord also reminded the solicitor to ensure the resident sent recordings so it could review them as per its standard procedure. It said it had received no response from either the resident or her solicitor.
The landlord confirmed that its grounds maintenance team had visited her neighbour’s property in March 2018 and cut back most of the overgrown weeds and bushes in their garden. Since then, it had been ‘working hard to try and improve the situation on an ongoing basis’. It stressed that, due to issues around confidentiality, it could not provide any further information and, although it could not provide a date for when the issues would be resolved, it would keep trying to resolve the matter. It offered to attend the resident’s property and cut back any vegetation that was encroaching on her garden.
The landlord confirmed that the landlord’s and resident’s solicitors reached an agreement on 26 April 2021 that included the RRL and historic allegations, which was then approved by the court on 16 August 2021. It confirmed that, as part of the agreement, she was no longer on the RRL.
It said that it had worked with the resident’s Focused Care Coordinator to support her housing application and that the application had been completed. The landlord confirmed that it had written to her solicitor on 7 September 2021, asking them to clarify within 28 days what else the landlord could do to support her rehousing application, but it had not received any response.
The landlord stated that it could not find any evidence to support the resident’s view that one of its staff members had been the ring leader for everything that had happened to her and that, during its discussion with the resident, she did not raise any examples of poor behaviour about any other staff.
It confirmed that issues around outstanding repairs and the landlord’s failure to adhere to the gas safety report were subject to legal proceedings as part of a disrepair claim and therefore it could not comment further.
It stated that, during the discussion, the landlord had asked the resident what reasonable adjustments she wanted it to make. She stated that she wanted, “to be given at least 5 working days’ notice of an appointment to your home, so that you could arrange for your Focused Care Coordinator to be present”. In addition, she wanted her telephone number to be taken off the landlord’s system and for it to only contact her via email or letter. The landlord assured her that it would, “meet both reasonable adjustments moving forwards, unless you have reported an emergency out of hours that needs attending to immediately”.

On 10 April 2022 the resident moved to a different property and was no longer a tenant of this landlord.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of an overgrown garden in a neighbouring property.

The evidence shows that, in 2016, the landlord obtained a court injunction against the resident’s neighbour to compel them to take reasonable action to keep their garden clear. In response to the resident’s more recent concerns, the landlord acted appropriately in offering to cut back any vegetation that was encroaching on her garden and to continue working with the neighbour to resolve the ongoing issue. This shows that the landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns.

The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

The evidence shows the resident contacted the landlord several times between February and March 2020 to report noise nuisance and ASB. The landlord’s records show that it consistently failed to return the resident’s contacts and did not acknowledge or apologise for its poor response either in its stage one or two response. It was not until July 2021, following contact from the police, that the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge that she had been reporting ‘’some problem’ she was having with her neighbour”.
The landlord acted appropriately in appointing a single point of contact to liaise between the resident and Community Safety team with regard to her noise and ASB reports. It was also appropriate that the point of contact tried to manage the resident’s expectations at the outset and by asking her to allow five working days to respond to her emails, even though he would “try and respond sooner”.
The landlord was correct to liaise with the Community Safety team in order to arrange for noise monitoring equipment to be installed in the resident’s property. The landlord also acted appropriately when it advised the resident in the meantime to record the noise disturbances via the noise app, or on her mobile phone, and it was also correct to provide her with an email address where she could send her recordings. Although there was a delay of around two months in making the noise monitoring equipment available, this was because the equipment was being used in another property and therefore the delay was beyond the landlord’s control. It is not clear from the evidence available whether or not the Community Safety team had succeeded in installing the equipment.
The evidence shows that, although the landlord made attempts to arrange for the noise monitoring equipment to be installed in the property once it was ready, it did not receive any response from either the resident or her solicitor to confirm whether or not the resident still wanted the equipment in her property. Despite there being no indication it had been installed, it is clear the landlord took reasonable steps to try and provide the equipment. In addition, despite several reminders to the resident to send recordings from her phone, there is no indication she had made any such evidence available. The landlord was therefore not entirely at fault for its difficulties in supporting the resident to gather evidence supporting her noise and ASB reports.
However, there is nothing in the records to indicate that the landlord took sufficient action in response to the resident’s reports of being racially abused, threatened or when she wrote to say: “I have had to phone the police because I’m feeling suicidal after being woken by loud noise and music screaming”. It was aware she had mental health issues; however, there is no evidence the landlord arranged any welfare checks or that it carried out any risk assessments to determine the level of impact the noise disturbances and ASB were having both on the resident and her daughter.
The landlord could have provided the resident with diary sheets when she first reported the ASB. Instead, contrary to the undertaking it makes in its ASB policy to respond to each reported incident, it failed to acknowledge the resident’s reports for around six months. In addition, there is no evidence the landlord made any attempt to agree an action plan with the resident on how it would handle her noise and ASB reports and support her going forward. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, not only did this put the resident and her daughter at risk for longer than necessary and leave her to experience the distress of ongoing noise disturbance and alleged threats, its failure to react to several reports by the resident was also a clear failure by the landlord to follow its own policy.
There is internal correspondence that suggests the landlord may not have been treating the resident’s report as legitimate concerns. It is clear there was a breakdown of relationship between the landlord and resident, which often led to difficult and challenging communication. This may have contributed to a degree of reluctance by staff to react appropriately to the resident’s reports, or to initially take the resident’s reports as seriously as it should have done. In addition, the landlord’s approach meant that it did not effectively manage the resident’s expectations about what it could or could not do in response her reports. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not acknowledge its slow response and lack of action in its complaint response, following the resident’s initial reports of ASB, or that it did not offer an apology for what amounted to maladministration.

The resident’s reports of outstanding repairs and recommendations following a gas safety report.

The independent survey of 28 August 2020 found “a small degree of mould growth indicative of condensation” around one of the bedroom windows and advised that the landlord installed a mechanical extraction fan in the kitchen, that the shower should be inspected by a qualified electrician and that a gas safe engineer should check one of the radiators at the next annual safety check. The surveyor did not recommend any other works and found no disrepair or breach of the landlord’s obligations under the tenancy agreement. The landlord was entitled to rely on the findings of the inspection carried out by a qualified surveyor.
The survey states that, “the mould growth is not in my opinion as a result of a structural defect” and that it, “is indicative of condensation caused by the occupants’ failure to manage the internal humidity levels ensuring a balance of ventilation, air circulation and heating is maintained”. It goes on to say that, “Relative Humidity (RH) readings recorded at the time of inspection were in excess of 70%”. The report quoted the Code of Practice for control of condensation in buildings, which states that, “If the RH of a room stays at 70% for long periods of time, the external wall surfaces will be sufficiently humid to support the growth of mould”.
There is no evidence that, following this finding, the landlord offered the resident any advice or support on managing the condensation. It could have given the resident advice on how she could help improve ventilation in her home, offered to supply dehumidifiers in order to help reduce the humidity levels and check whether there were any affordability issues that may have been preventing the resident from using her heating so that appropriate support could be explored. Although it is acknowledged the survey and its findings were part of an ongoing disrepair claim at the time, the landlord should have been more proactive in dealing with the issues it had been made aware of. Its failure to do so did amount to a service failure.
The evidence shows that the landlord carried out a gas safety check on 1 September 2021 and, although it was disputing the resident’s disrepair claim, it is positive to note that it did arrange for a mechanical ventilation fan to be fitted in the kitchen on 24 November 2021, and booked joinery works and a boiler inspection for 25 November 2021.

The behaviour of staff.

Although the records show the relationship between the landlord and resident was strained and that there was repeated communication from the resident where she perceived the landlord was harassing and discriminating against her, there is no evidence to show this was the case. It is positive to note that the resident was receiving support from a care coordinator and that the landlord was working with the care coordinator to support the resident’s re-housing application.

The resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.

The evidence shows that, during a telephone conversation about her stage two complaint, the resident requested for the landlord to make two reasonable adjustments for her. The landlord confirmed in its stage two response that it would be making those adjustments and there is no evidence to show it failed to meet them.

Complaint Handling.

The evidence shows that it took the landlord over six months to respond to the resident’s stage one complaint of 6 March 2020. In addition, it failed to acknowledge the complaint, or to make any contact with the resident to let her know the response would be delayed, or to agree a new timescale. Although it upheld parts of the complaint, it failed to acknowledge that the response was delayed or to offer an apology, or any compensation for its failure to meet its service requirements. The handling of the stage one complaint was excessively protracted and this was exacerbated by the landlord’s poor communication. The landlord failed to follow either its own complaints policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which amounts to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s decision to seek a court injunction against the resident in respect of her contact with her neighbours was outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with Paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be removed from the Rehousing Review List (RRL) was outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with Paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that she only found out about allegations relating to her daughter when a case came to court was outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an overgrown garden in a neighbouring property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB)
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the behaviour of staff.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs and recommendations following a gas safety report.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord had issued proceedings for an injunction, therefore the resident’s complaint was dealt with under another jurisdiction.
The landlord dealt with this matter as part of legal proceedings, therefore the resident’s complaint was dealt with under another jurisdiction.
The landlord dealt with this matter as part of legal proceedings, therefore the resident’s complaint was dealt with under another jurisdiction.
The landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns by offering to cut any overgrown vegetation from her neighbour’s property that was impinging on her garden, and to continue to work with her neighbour on an ongoing basis, in order to ensure their garden was kept clear.
The landlord was slow to act on the resident’s reports of noise disturbance and ASB, and failed to act on her initial reports. It also failed to take account of the resident’s vulnerabilities by not acknowledging the resident’s initial reports of racial abuse, threats made towards her and communication where she stated she was feeling suicidal. By not making adequate welfare checks, the landlord did not properly meet its duty of care towards the resident.
There was no evidence to support the resident’s allegations about the behaviour of staff.
The landlord failed to provide adequate advice following findings from a survey, which identified evidence of damp and mould due to condensation. It offered no support to the resident in managing the condensation in the property, despite being made aware in the survey of high humidity levels.
The landlord agreed at the outset to make the reasonable adjustments the resident had requested and there is no evidence the landlord failed to meet those requirements.
The landlord took over six months to respond to the resident’s stage one response. It failed to acknowledge the complaint, apologise for the delay or offer any redress. There is no evidence the landlord made any contact with the resident about the concerns she raised in her complaint about ASB within that six month period.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £300 for its failure to respond to the resident’s initial reports of noise nuisance and ASB and the distress caused by the landlord’s lack of action for over six months.
The landlord to pay the resident £200 for its failure to provide adequate advice and support to help the resident manage the high levels of condensation in her property.
The landlord to pay the resident £250 for its poor complaint handling.
The total compensation amount of £750 must be paid within four weeks of receiving this determination.
In view of the landlord’s slowness to act on the resident’s reports of noise disturbance and ASB, or to take account of the resident’s vulnerabilities and reports of racial abuse, threats made towards her and expressions of feeling suicidal, the landlord to provide training to staff in safeguarding. This training should focus on ensuring staff are alert to residents’ vulnerabilities and what appropriate steps they should take if situations like this occur in future. The landlord to report back with a training plan within eight weeks of receiving this determination.