Optivo (201906896)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201906896

Optivo

27 February 2021

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

This complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Anti-social behaviour by his neighbour and their partner.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a housing transfer.
3. The resident’s request for compensation for redirection of post and for additional locks he fitted to his front door.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 22 March 2010.
The property is a one-bedroom, ground floor flat in a converted house. The resident has sole use of the rear garden and shares a communal entrance way with his neighbour.
The post boxes for both properties are located outside the communal entrance door.

Summary of events

On 21 February 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to report that his neighbour’s partner had been tampering with his post. The resident said that five months previously his neighbour’s partner used to intimidate him, stomp around the flat, slamming doors, and open his post and take stuff out. The resident said that he was now experiencing the same issues and that his post, which he had started to have delivered again, was once again being opened. The resident said that he did not feel safe as his neighbour had given her partner keys to the communal door. The resident said he had made a report to the police and provided the landlord with a crime reference number.
Following the resident’s call, the landlord made an appointment to visit and interview the alleged perpetrator on 27 February 2019. The landlord also set up two-weekly contact with the resident, starting on 8 March 2019. No records of either of these have been seen by this service.
On 19 March 2019, the landlord’s ASB records note that the resident had requested for the case to be closed and that a closure letter had been sent out to both parties.
The resident’s mother then contacted the landlord to express her concerns about her son closing the case and him being vulnerable. The landlord then called the resident on 2 April 2019, to discuss his decision to withdraw his complaint. The landlord noted that the resident confirmed that he would like the ASB case closed. A case closure review was then carried out on 4 April 2019 and the case closed. No details of the case closure review have been seen by this service.
On 3 September 2019, the resident contact the landlord to request a new post box.
On 12 September 2019, the landlord emailed the resident. The landlord said that it had instructed its contractor to change his post box lock on 17 September 2019 and that the contractor had been told to hand the key to him. The landlord said that if the resident was not at home that day, the key would be taken to its office for him to collect. The landlord also said that it would reimburse the resident for the cost he incurred redirecting his post and would confirm the dates its reimbursement would cover once the works had been completed. The landlord said that the resident would have to provide receipts before it would be able to reimburse him. The landlord also said that it would like to meet the resident and him mother at its office to discuss his concerns about the ASB he had reported. The landlord said that it would be in a better position to provide the resident with a full response to his complaint following that meeting.
On 17 September 2019, the lock to the resident’s post box was changed and, as the resident was not home, the keys were returned to the landlord’s office.
On 28 October 2019, the landlord wrote the resident following its meeting with him and his mother on 24 October 2019.
1. The landlord confirmed that it had agreed for the resident’s ASB case to be reviewed independently, as the resident had said that he felt his case had not been investigated impartially and that evidence he had previously provided had not been considered.
2. With regards to the resident’s reports of missing post, criminal damage and reported burglary, the landlord said that it would request a full police disclosure and would arrange for a surveyor to review the security of his door and bay window.
3. The landlord also said that it had agreed to review the resident’s post box, as the resident had said the one it had installed was inadequate and replace it if necessary.
On 27 November 2019, the landlord emailed the resident to update him on the progress of his complaint. The landlord advised that his ASB case had been reviewed by a manager not previously involved in the case, that an internal meeting had been arranged for earlier the next week and that it would issue is response to all his concerns by 16 December 2019. The landlord said that this would allow time for the survey of the resident’s front door, bay window and his post box to be completed.
The landlord issued its Stage 1 complaint response on 16 December 2019. The landlord said that:
1. It had responded to the residents report of ASB on 21 February 2019 within timescales and that an ASB was opened on 22 February 2019 and an appointment letter sent to the alleged perpetrator on 27 February 2019. The landlord acknowledged that the resident asked for his case to be closed on 19 March 2019, but this did not happen. The landlord also acknowledged that the resident’s mother had called regarding the reopening of the case, but it did not have the resident’s written permission to speak at that time to do so. The landlord confirmed that this had been provided during a later meeting with the resident and his mother. Following that meeting the landlord said it had agreed to close the case on 4 April 2019 but would continue to investigate other matters such as the resident’s post box.
2. It had been in contact with the Police regarding all the incidents reported by the resident but the Police disclosure had not confirmed any criminal reports for missing post or criminal damage, and that without the evidence the landlord was unable to take any action against his neighbour.
3. It had not found any evidence to suggest that the resident’s ASB reports was managed with a bias towards his neighbour.
4. Its surveyor would be attending his property on 7 January 2020, following which it would make a decision about how to proceed with regards to the resident’s request for a replacement post box and his concerns about the security of his front door and bay window
5. The landlord also asked the resident to send any receipts or evidence of any costs he had incurred for the redirection of post and that his claim would be dealt with in line with its compensation policy or as an insurance claim, as appropriate.
6. The landlord also noted that the resident had emailed requesting a move. The landlord said that, as there was no police evidence to suggest he was a risk, it would be unable to offer him direct assistance. The landlord provided the resident with a link to its Housing Options booklet and a contact number for its lettings team.
Between 27 and 29 December 2019, the resident sent the landlord a number of emails regarding his neighbour tampering with his post box, stealing his letters and opening them.
On 2 March 2020, the landlord issued its Stage 2 response. The landlord said that:
1. It was sorry the resident remained unhappy with its responses to his reports of ASB and that it had hoped to meet with him to discuss his concerns in person, but he had said that he did not want to meet with them. The landlord agreed that there had been some delays and that his ASB case should have been handled better. The landlord apologised for this. The landlord also noted that the resident had said it had been ignoring his photographic evidence regarding his neighbour and her partner, however it had not received that evidence. The landlord asked the resident to provide copies and it would review them.
2. An appointment had been arranged for its surveyor and contractor to inspect the post box and his front door on 14 November 2019, but they were not able to gain access. The landlord said that the surveyor visited again on 7 January 2020 and 13 February 2020 but again was unable to gain access. The landlord said that it had made another appointment for its surveyor and contractor to visit the resident’s property on 4 March 2020 to inspect the bay window and front door.
3. The landlord apologised to the resident for the time it had taken to respond to his complaint and offered the resident £250 compensation for the service failings it had identified. The landlord also said that it would be happy to reimburse the resident for his redirected post and additional locks he had fitted, and that if he were able to supply receipts it would arrange payment.
On 7 April 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to complain about the post box the landlord had fitted. The resident said that he sent the landlord photos and video evidence of how easy it was to steal from his post box, but that these were ignored. The resident said that the escalation in the issues with his post had resulted in threats of murder by his neighbour. The resident asked that the landlord send a letter to the relevant parties to ask them not to tamper with his post box.
The landlord responded the same day advising the resident that as his concerns related to his current complaint, he would have an opportunity to discuss them at the review panel. The landlord also said that it would arrange for a letter be sent to him and his neighbour, to ask that there is no tampering with the post box.
On 6 May 2020, the landlord submitted a Request for Information and Response form to the Police. The police confirmed that the resident had contacted them on 24 May 2019, 1 June 2019, 2 June 2019, 4 June 2019, 12 June 2019, 27 August 2019, 17 December 2019, 1 January 2020, 19 April 2020 and 27 April 2020. The Police confirmed that most calls concerned the resident reporting that his home was being broken into. However, there was ‘’no evidence to suggest that anything untoward has occurred’’.
On 21 May 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to complain that he had reported threats made by his neighbour’s partner to stab him to the police but they took no action. The resident alleged that the landlord was biased against him and favoured his neighbour. The resident said that the landlord should be involving the police and requested that CCTV be installed as a matter of urgency as his neighbour and her partner were tampering with his post and this had gone on for over two years. The resident also said that his neighbour was responsible for damage to his front door, which appeared to be ‘’some kind of crowbar marks’’.
On 6 June 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to thank it for agreeing on the installation of CCTV. The resident said that he had spoken to the contractor and that it would be fitted on 17 June 2020.
On 15 June 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to complain that his post box had not been changed to a tamper proof version and that he had had to pay another £170 to get his post redirected again.
On 16 June 2020, the landlord considered a request by the resident for a move at its Management Transfer panel. It was agreed that the resident should be moved to alternative accommodation within the landlord’s stock but that this would be subject to the resident receiving external support to enable him to sustain his tenancy. The landlord said that the resident would have a single point of contact to assist him with his application, who would also liaise with the resident’s doctor.
On 18 June 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that his request to be rehoused had been agreed and that its Tenancy Sustainment team were available to assist him with his application and help with engagement with the Local Authority. The landlord said that its Tenancy Sustainment officer would be in contact with the resident on 26 June 2020 to discuss how the landlord might help him with his application. On 29 June 2020, a Housing Register form was completed with the resident and sent to the local authority.
On 1 July 2020, the resident emailed the landlord about him having received ‘‘more death threats by the dangerous (neighbour)’’. On 2 July 2020, the resident emailed the landlord again making further allegations against his neighbour of ‘‘stalking and tactics burglars use’’. The resident said that he had not received a response from the landlord, that it was turning a ‘‘blind eye to certain residents criminal behaviour’’ and that there remained ‘‘a huge threat to me as a vulnerable resident’’.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 July 2020. The landlord confirmed that it would contact him when it had a date for his Review panel. The landlord also confirmed what had been agreed with the resident during its phone call earlier that he did not want the landlord to write to his neighbour about his allegations and would rather it wait until he had moved home.
Between 4 July and 7 August 2020 the resident emailed the landlord many times about the behaviour of his neighbour.
The landlord emailed the CCTV contractor on 20 July 2020 to request that they arrange to download CCTV footage from the above property. The contractor responded on 28 July 2020 to say that an appointment booked for the previous day had, at the very last minute, been cancelled by the resident. The contractor said that it was trying to rearrange with the resident as the footage only lasts for up to four weeks.
On 5 August 2020, the CCTV contractor emailed the landlord to advise that it had been trying to arrange access to download the CCTV footage but had been unable to do so as the resident had said that, as it was the school holidays, his neighbour was around most of the time. The contractor said that it had arranged an appointment for the previous day, but the resident cancelled. The contractor said that it had spoken to the resident and had agreed that he would let them know when a good time would be to download the footage. The contractor said that it had also informed the resident that it needed at least a couple of days notice to make arrangements to come and download and that it was not able to attend with a short notice. The contractor advised that footage was only kept for around 30 days within the recorder and so the request for footage from 12 July 2020 may no longer be available after 12 August 2020. The contractor confirmed that the resident was made aware of this.
On 11 August 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to say that he was extremely concerned about his safety at his current address and that his psychiatrist and social services shared his concerns. The resident said that the CCTV footage should be used to prosecute his neighbour but that it was useless because it only hold recordings for one month. The resident said that when the CCTV was installed the landlord failed to advise him that that was the case.
On 20 August 2020, the landlord emailed the CCTV contractor for an update on the CCTV footage. The CCTV contractor responded on 26 August 2020, the contractor said that it had again experienced difficulties arranging appointments with the resident, and it needed access to communal entrance area. The contractor said that its engineer attended site, but the resident did not answer his phone and later asked to arrange another appointment.
Throughout August until early September 2020, the resident continued to email the landlord with reports of calling cards being ‘‘jammed’’ in his door, that the hallway had once again been tampered with and that his neighbour’s partner had continued to live in her flat for three days. The resident also said that the landlord had failed to pick up the much needed evidence against his dangerous neighbours, including threats of murder.
On 8 September 2020, the landlord spoke to the resident over the phone. The landlord confirmed that it had arranged for the CCTV company to attend the resident’s property the following day. The landlord also raised it concern that the resident had declined to allow his doctor to share information with the landlord. The landlord explained that this made it difficult for a support package to be put together, which was a condition of the offer to move him. The landlord also explained that if the required consent was not provided the landlord would have no alternative but to withdraw his priority move status
The complaint review panel meeting took place as planned on 6 October 2020 and the landlord issued its final response on 23 October 2020.
With regards to the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB, the landlord:
1. Apologised that its response to the resident’s reports of ASB fell outside of its usual standards, referring specifically to delays and actions being completed later than they should have, speaking to the resident’s mother with prior consent from him and that its case management records should have been better maintained
2. Apologised for not opening a new ASB case on 28 April 2020, when the resident reported an altercation during which the resident alleged his neighbour partner threatened to stab him. The landlord acknowledged that this was not in line with its ASB policy and procedures.
3. Said that it had been in contact with police who had confirmed that here had been incidents reported to them on 14 February and 24 May 2019 in relation to theft from the resident’s post box and an attempted burglary but the police would not be taking action in relation to those reports.
4. Explained that, based on the police disclosure and the absence of an independent witness, even if it had progressed the investigation under its anti-social behaviour policy it would not have changed the outcome. The landlord also explained that this was because it can only take tenancy enforcement action of there is sufficient evidence and in this case it had only been able to consider the resident’s account of the incidents, the CCTV footage did not support his allegations and his neighbour had denied his allegations.
5. Said that, based on the evidence provided by the resident, it had been unable to find any evidence of harassment by its staff, nor evidence of a manager lying to the police about security measures.
6. Confirmed that the post box was replaced to reassure the resident that he was being taken seriously, despite there being no evidence of his post being stolen.
7. The landlord also confirmed that the resident had subsequently requested a tamper proof post box and had provided it with a video of the resident taking post out without unlocking it. However, following its surveyors visit on 7 January 2020, it was determined that the post box was fit for purpose and so it would not be upgrading the post box.
With regards to the resident’s property transfer request. The landlord confirmed that the resident had been accepted as a priority move into one of its properties. The landlord said that its Tenancy Sustainment officer had been working with the resident’s GP to arrange a support package for him, which was a condition of the any move, but the resident had withheld consent for his GP to work with the landlord. The landlord said that if the resident still wanted the landlord to support him to move he would need to allow his GP to share information with it. The landlord also advised the resident that if he prevented this from happening, there was a risk that the offer of alternative accommodation may be removed.
With regards to the resident’s request for compensation for redirection of post and for additional locks he fitted to his front door. The landlord:
1. Said that as it had provided the resident with a secure post box, it should not have committed to covering the cost of redirecting his mail as there was no evidence of mail being stolen
2. Said that the resident had a secure post box and that if he had concerns about the theft of post he should report that to the Police and Royal mail.
3. Agreed to offer the resident £50 for the cost of setting up the redirect mail. The landlord also agreed to reimburse the resident for the cost of the locks he had installed when it had received his receipts.
The landlord acknowledged the delay in the complaints process and that it had not been possible to hold a face to face review meeting as the resident had requested. The landlord apologised to the resident for the unintended impact this had on him.
The landlord said that it had reviewed the £250 compensation it had offered the resident on 2 March 2020, which it noted the resident had rejected, and that it would now like to offer the resident £550 compensation, made up as follows:
1. £250 previously offered for service failures
2. £50 for redirection of mail (when receipts received)
3. £150 for the length of time taken and its complaint handling process
4. £100 for the resident’s time and trouble and the impact this has had on him.
5. Reimbursement for locks (when receipts received)
The landlord ended by advising the resident that if remained dissatisfied with its response he could refer his complaint to the Housing Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord behaved reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman’s role is also to consider whether the landlord’s complaint response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) by his neighbour and their partner.

It is important to note that it is not the purpose of this report to investigate any of the alleged ASB itself, to apportion blame or to assess the credibility of the reports made by the complainant and his neighbours. Rather it has been to assess the landlord’s response to the reports and to the complainant’s subsequent complaint with reference to its own policies as well as our own assessment of what is fair, given all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that when a resident reports ASB it will consider the risks to the resident, provide support, will take appropriate action to investigate reports of ASB and may use monitoring equipment to do so, and take action to stop further incidents. The policy goes on to state that the landlord will tell the resident who is handling their case, agree and action plan and keep the resident informed of the actions it takes, but it will not take action where there’s insufficient evidence to do so. The policy also states that the landlord will contact the resident before closing the case, giving its reasons for this.
The landlord acted appropriately following the resident’s initial reports of ASB. This it did by making an appointment to interview the alleged perpetrator on 27 February 2019 and setting up a two-weekly meeting with the resident, commencing on 8 March 2019. No evidence of either the interview with the alleged perpetrator or the landlord’s meeting with the resident on 8 March 2019 have been seen by this service. However, this has not been disputed by the resident.
The landlord’s records indicate that the resident asked that his case be closed on 18 March 2019 and that a closure letter to both the resident and the alleged perpetrator. Neither of these letters have been seen by this service and in its Stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that this did not happen.
Shortly after the resident requested that his case be closed, the landlord was contacted by the resident’s mother who expressed her concerns about her son closing the case and him being vulnerable. The landlord then called the resident to discuss his decision to close the case and, following a closure review the case was closed on 4 April 2019. The landlord in its Stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that it should not have spoken to the resident’s mother without his prior consent.
Following further reports by the resident of missing post, criminal damage and burglary attempts by his neighbour and her partner. The landlord requested a full police disclosure. In its Stage 1 response of 16 December 2019, the landlord confirmed that the disclosure did not confirm any criminal reports for missing post or criminal damage. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that without further evidence it was unable to take any action against his neighbour.
The landlord did however acknowledge the resident’s concerns about security and so arranged for its surveyor to visit to inspect his front door, bay window and the suitability of his post box. In its final response of 4 March 2020, the landlord confirmed that it had attempted to gain access to carry out the inspection on 14 November 2019, 7 January 2020 and 13 February 2020 but was unable to gain access. The landlord also said that three other appointments to carry out the inspection had also been cancelled by the resident.
On 7 April 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to say that the landlord’s opposition to a new post box had escalated a chain of events that resulted in threats of murder by his neighbour. The landlord responded to this email but did not address the serious allegation the resident had made, only advising him that as his concerns related to his current complaint and that he would have an opportunity to discuss them at the review panel.
However, on 6 May 2020, the landlord did submit a Request for information and Response to the Police. The police confirmed that they had received a number of reports from the resident between 24 May 2019 and 27 April 2020 but there was ‘’no evidence to suggest that anything untoward has occurred’’.
In an email of 21 May 2020 the resident again reported threats by his neighbour to stab him, which he said he had reported to the police. No evidence has been provided of the landlord responding to the resident’s report.
On 1 July 2020, the resident emailed the landlord again to report ‘more death threats’’ by his neighbour. On this occasion, the landlord spoke to the resident on 3 July 2020, which it followed up with an email the same day confirming that the resident had said that he did not want the landlord to write to his neighbour until he had moved.
Given that the landlord only had the resident’s accounts of the incidents, that the police had not provided any evidence to support the resident’s claims, that the CCTV footage did not support his allegations and as the neighbour had denied his allegations it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that there was insufficient evidence for it to take tenancy enforcement action against his neighbour.
With regards to the resident’s allegation that the landlord delayed checking if there was evidence of ASB by the neighbour that might warrant further action by the landlord. There is evidence that the landlord did attempt to obtain downloads from the CCTV in a timely manner. The CCTV was installed on 17 June 2020 and the landlord contacted the CCTV contractor on 20 July 2020 to request that they arrange to download the CCTV footage from the resident’s property. However, the contractor was unable to download the footage as the resident did not provide it with access to enable it to do so. The contactor made an appointment with the resident on 27 July 2020, but the resident cancelled. The contractor then made a number of further attempts to access the property to download the footage but it either had difficulty arranging appointments with the resident or appointments that had been arranged were cancelled by the resident.
The landlord also responded appropriately to the resident’s allegations that it acted had a ‘‘special’’ relationship with his neighbour, which meant he was being treated unfavourably. This it did by arranging for an independent review of its handling of his reports of ASB. The landlord later reported that the review found no evidence to suggest that the resident’s ASB was managed with a bias towards his neighbour.
In its final response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident for its response to his reports of ASB falling outside of its usual standards. The landlord referred specifically to speaking to the resident’s mother with prior consent from him and that its case management records should have been better maintained. The landlord also apologised for failing to comply with its ASB policy and procedures by not opening a new ASB case in April 2020 when the resident had reported that his neighbour’s partner had threatened to stab him.
The landlord offered the resident a total of £350 compensation, made up of the £250 for its acknowledged service failures plus an additional £100 for his time and trouble and the impact this had had on him.
The Ombudsman’s approach to matters such as compensation for distress and inconvenience is based upon our Dispute Resolution Principles (be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes) and is in line with the Public Sector Ombudsmen Principles for Remedy, which set out the general guidance.
Taking into account the landlord’s acknowledgement and apologies for its service failures, I am satisfied that £350 compensation is reasonable and proportionate in this instance.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a housing transfer.

The landlord’s Housing Options Policy provides for a number of routes by which a resident might be rehoused. These include local authority Choice based lettings (CBL), and Management moves.
Having reviewed the evidence I am satisfied that there was no service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to his request for a housing transfer.
As the resident had told the landlord that he no longer felt safe in his home and wished to move to alternate accommodation, it was appropriate for the landlord to advise him of the options that might be available to him.
The landlord also considered the resident’s request for a move at its Management Transfer panel on 16 June 2020 at. The panel agreed that the resident should be accepted as a priority move into one of its properties but that this would be subject to the resident receiving external support to enable him to sustain his tenancy.
Whilst the local authority, and not the landlord, is responsible for providing the resident with that external support, the landlord nevertheless agreed to provide the resident with a single point of contact to assist him with his application to help with engagement with the Local Authority. The landlord did this and on 29 June 2020, a Housing Register form was completed with the resident and sent to the local authority. The actions of the local authority following receipt of the resident’s application and any decision made by it are not the responsibility of the landlord, nor are they matters that can be considered by this service.
The landlord also agreed to would work with the resident’s GP to help arrange the support package for him. However, at the time of the landlord’s final response, the resident had not provided the necessary consent for the landlord to do so.

The resident’s request for compensation for redirection of post and for additional locks he fitted to his front door.

The resident has complained that he is dissatisfied with the level of compensation the landlord had offered him with regards to costs he incurred redirecting his post and installing additional locks to his property. The resident said that because his post was not secure he had no alternative but to re direct his post and therefore the landlord should reimburse him back to when he first reported his concerns. The resident also said that he fitted additional locks to his property as he believed his neighbour had attempted to burgle his property.
The landlord initially said that it would be happy to reimburse the resident for his redirected post and additional locks he had fitted, and that if he were able to supply receipts it would arrange payment. However, in its final response the landlord reconsidered its position.
The landlord still agreed to reimburse the resident for the cost of the locks he had installed, when it had received his receipts, but said that it would reduce the amount it would reimburse the resident for the redirection of his post to £50.
The landlord explained that this was because it had replaced the post box to reassure the resident that he was being taken seriously despite there being no evidence that his post was being stolen. The landlord also explained that it had provided the resident had a secure post box and that if he had concerns about the theft of post he should report that to the Police and Royal mail.
In its final response the landlord offered the resident £50 for the redirection of his mail and to reimburse him for the cost of the locks he installed to his property. Both offers were subject to the resident providing the landlord with receipts.
Having reviewed the evidence, I am satisfied that there was no service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for compensation for redirection of post and for additional locks he fitted to his front door. This is because the landlord was not responsible for the extra locks installed by the resident and, whilst there was no substantiated evidence of the resident’s post being tampered with, the landlord replaced his post box.
Nevertheless, as a gesture of goodwill the landlord offered to pay the resident £50 for the redirection of his mail and to reimburse the his for the cost of the locks he installed to his property, both offers subject to the resident providing the landlord with receipts.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its acknowledged failings in the handling of the resident’s reports of Anti-social behaviour by his neighbour and their partner.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for a housing transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no service failure by the landlord in respect of the resident’s request for compensation for redirection of post and for additional locks he fitted to his front door.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged its service failure with regards to its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord initial offered the resident £250 for its acknowledged service failure in March 2020. The landlord also acknowledged that it failed to respond to the resident’s reports that his neighbour’s partner had threaten to stab him in accordance with its ASB policy and offered the resident a further £100 compensation. The overall offer of £350 made by the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress for its acknowledged service failures..
The landlord agreed that the resident should be accepted as a priority move into one of its properties, subject to the resident receiving external support to enable him to sustain his tenancy. The landlord assisted the resident with its application to the local authority but was unable to continue assisting him with arranging the support, that was a condition of the offer, as the resident did not provide his GP with the necessary authorisation for the landlord to do so.
The landlord was not responsible for the additional locks installed by the resident nor was the landlord obliged to replace the resident’s post box. Nevertheless, the landlord agreed, subject to the resident providing the necessary receipts, to reimburse him for the cost of the locks he installed and to pay him £50 towards the costs he incurred redirecting his post. It was reasonable for the landlord to decline to pay the full redirection costs as it had replaced the resident previous post box, despite there being no evidence that his post was being stolen.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

That within 6 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is to pay the resident £350 compensation, made up as follows:
1. The £250 it offered the resident for its acknowledged failures with regard to its response to the resident’s reports of ASB
2. Plus, the additional £100 offered for his time and trouble and the impact this had had on him.
That within 6 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord review its staff training needs in relation to the correct application of its antisocial behaviour policy and procedure, including the appropriate action to take if a resident reports that threats have been made to harm them.
The landlord shall contact this Service within 6 weeks of the date of this determination to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.
That within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, and subject to the resident providing the landlord with the appropriate receipts, that the landlord pay the resident £50 towards the redirection of his post and reimburse him for the cost of the locks he installed to his property.
The landlord to report back to the Ombudsman as to the action it has taken in response to these Recommendations within 6 weeks of the date of this determination.