Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202116273)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116273

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

31 January 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), including reports of a hate incident.
2. Handling of the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments in its contact with him.
3. Response to reports it received about the resident’s conduct towards its staff.
4. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, having completed a mutual exchange in August 2017. The property is a 2 bedroom terrace house and the resident’s reports of ASB relate to his immediate neighbour. He has advised that his neighbour moved out in December 2022 and that the neighbouring property remains empty.
The resident has disclosed that he is autistic and that he has some mobility issues following an accident in which he broke his back. The landlord has said that it has no record of the resident’s vulnerabilities, having been provided with no medical information by him.
The landlord has provided its ASB records which show that it opened a case in March 2020 following a complaint by the resident of noise. This was closed in May 2020 when no further complaints were received. A new ASB case was opened in May 2021. The resident complained the neighbour’s television was too loud and that he could also hear music. He said it was impacting on his sleep. At the same time, he raised concerns about the condition of the neighbour’s garden which he believed was attracting rats. He also said that she had on occasion stood outside his door in the middle of the night. This he said had been captured on his CCTV. The landlord wrote to the resident providing him with an action plan and encouraged him to download the Noise App and to maintain diary sheets to build a case of ongoing ASB.
In July 2021 the resident reported that his neighbour had been racially abusive towards him. He provided a recording of this to the landlord and reported the incident to the police. The resident made further reports to the landlord about his neighbour’s behaviour during September and October 2021 and said that he did not feel safe in his home. The landlord’s ASB case records show that mediation was offered to the resident. It also noted that both parties had made complaints and that they had been advised to “ignore each other”. The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 October 2021. It said that his neighbour had received a warning from the police. There had been no reports of further incidents and the evidence he had provided did not constitute ASB.
The landlord responded to the resident’s formal complaint about the handling of his reports of ASB and members of the landlord’s staff on 30 November 2021. It said that it understood that the resident felt that it had not supported him or considered the impact on him of the reported ASB. It went on to say that its review had found that there was no ASB and that it was unable to take enforcement action. It said that if he decided to press charges against his neighbour, it could then take further action. It was investigating the positioning of his neighbours CCTV cameras, which it believed were wildlife cameras.
The resident was unhappy with the outcome of his complaint and asked that this be escalated. The landlord refused to escalate the complaint as it related to reports of ASB. Its Customer Experience Team referred the case back to its Tenancy Solutions Team to follow up on the issues raised by the resident. It provided a follow up response on 13 December 2021. It acknowledged that the resident felt he had been treated in a racist manner. It said that as it was a complex situation where both parties had said “heated and upsetting things to each other” it had accepted the police’s community resolution. It said that it would look again should the police consider further charges. It referred him to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) should he wish to raise a formal complaint about his neighbours CCTV. It further set out the landlord’s target response time for replying to emails as a maximum of 5 working days. It said that the resident’s contact had been too frequent, demanding, and abusive. As many of his contacts had not brought new evidence, it asked him to respect its policy and wait for the appropriate officer to contact him. It encouraged the resident to speak with his GP as it acknowledged that he had reported the impact that the situation had had on his mental health. It also provided him with links to both the autism service and mind. It said the case had been closed.
In February 2022 the landlord opened an ASB case capturing the actions it took to address the behaviour of the resident towards the landlord’s staff. This included a report to the police, who spoke with the resident and culminated in the issuing of a warning letter by the landlord’s solicitor. The action was taken because of the content of the resident’s email and telephone contact with the landlord.
The warning letter sent on 2 March 2022 said that the resident was responsible for causing harassment, alarm, and distress to the landlord’s staff. It referred to a period between 27 November 2021 and 2 February 2022, over a series of 57 telephone calls. It said that the resident was not to contact the landlord via the telephone unless it was an emergency. All non-emergency contact was to be made via email. The resident contacted the Service on 7 March 2022 to complain about his landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB and the letter he had received from its solicitors. He raised a formal complaint with his landlord through its online complaint form on 9 May 2022.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 22 July 2022. It said that it had reviewed the complaint with its Head of Housing Services. It acknowledged that there had been delays in its complaints handling and it should have kept him informed. It had identified “several lessons learnt which would have helped avoid the increased frustration experienced by the resident”. It said that it could have handled both his report of verbal abuse by his neighbour and his request to escalate his complaint differently. Its set out the actions it had taken in response to the resident’s reports of ASB including “phoning, writing, offers to meet and mediation”. It said that the evidence provided did not meet its evidence threshold to take further action. It could also not interfere with a live police complaint and would wait for the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). It acknowledged the resident’s frustration but was satisfied with the actions taken in relation to the ASB, based on the evidence it had received. It said that it was not unwilling to support him or continue to investigate the matter but required new evidence to do so.
It further said that it had a zero tolerance approach to abuse of its staff members and the letter from its solicitors was advisory. This had been justified given the content of the calls it had received. It noted the resident’s comments about his disability and asked him to tell it what reasonable adjustments it could make to its service. In its conclusion it offered the resident compensation of £175 in recognition of the stress and inconvenience caused.
The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint in August 2022. He remained unhappy with how the landlord had handled his reports of ASB and his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Policy and procedures

The tenancy agreement includes specific clauses under the section headed your obligations setting out what the tenant must not do. This covers nuisance and ASB, noise and harassment and threatening behaviour.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints should be responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 15 working days. It says that regular updates, even without a definitive outcome, will be provided to help customers feel reassured and that someone is working on their behalf to put things right.
Exceptions to the complaints policy are captured under section 9. Here it sets out that a complaint of ASB is not a complaint about its service, unless it does not follow what it says in its ASB or neighbour disputes policy.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it is “committed to tackling incidents of ASB through a robust victim centred approach”. It says that the landlord will use a range of tools to manage ASB including mediation, noise monitoring, and tenancy warnings. It also states that it will carry out a risk assessment and agree an action plan with those reporting ASB.
The landlord’s unacceptable behaviour policy provides a definition and examples of what it considers to be unreasonable behaviour by a resident. This includes unreasonable demands and persistence, overload of contact, verbal abuse including language that is designed to insult or degrade and a refusal to accept an outcome of its complaints process. The policy sets out the restrictions that may be put in place on a resident’s contact with the landlord and says that a review period of 3 months will normally be set.

Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, including reports of a hate incident

The resident’s initial reports of ASB in March 2020 referred to noise nuisance caused by the volume of his neighbour’s television. The landlord’s records show that it took steps to speak directly with his neighbour and reached agreement that she would relocate her television to avoid future disturbance. This was an appropriate response.
The landlord’s ASB case record was closed, and no further incidents were recorded until the landlord opened a new ASB case on 28 May 2021. The resident had contacted his landlord initially on 24 May 2021 and made further calls to the landlord on the 26 and 27 May 2021. He reported several issues relating to his neighbour and her behaviour towards him. He said that she had been told to clean up her garden but had failed to do so and he was concerned that this was attracting rats.
One of the landlord’s Tenancy Solutions Officers spoke with the resident on the 27 May 2021 and advised that it had a target to call back residents within 3 days. It discussed the resident’s concerns with him and said that that while what his neighbour was doing “may appear odd to him”, unless it was a nuisance or aimed at him, they could not take action. He was asked what was “bothering him”. He said that she was raising the volume of her television after 10pm and sometimes in the middle of the night, affecting his sleep. She was also on occasion standing outside his door at night. He told his landlord that he was scared of his neighbour’s son, as he believed he had been involved in a violent burglary at his former home. He was asked to email in videos and photographic evidence. He was also advised about the Noise App and told to keep diary sheets. This was followed up with a letter to the resident providing an action plan and explaining that it would contact him every 2-4 weeks.
The landlord’s ASB case record captures 1 attempt to call the resident on 9 June 2021. This noted that it wanted to discuss the case with him and offer mediation. It also recorded that it was waiting for the resident to provide concrete evidence. This case was closed on 3 August 2021. In its later case records the landlord has captured contact between the resident and his Neighbourhood Co-ordinator via a messaging platform, providing video or photographic evidence. The resident had explained that this was the easiest way for him to sent in the videos. The landlord’s initial handling of the resident’s reports of nuisance caused by his neighbour was appropriate, in providing his with advice about gathering evidence and setting out and action plan. It did not follow this through and there was a lack of co-ordination between the landlord’s internal teams to share the evidence submitted through the messaging platform. The landlord opened a third ASB case record on 31 August 2021 based on the contact between the resident and his Neighbourhood Co-ordinator. This includes the resident’s report of racist abuse by his neighbour on 26 July 2021. There is no evidence that the landlord took any action to address the resident’s report of abuse.
In raising the case with the Tenancy Solutions Team, the Neighbourhood Co-ordinator said that they had spoken with both residents and told them to ignore each other. There is a suggestion that the racial slur was used by the neighbour after provocation from resident, but this is not confirmed. There was a recommendation that mediation should be arranged as both residents were reporting incidents. These were “generally neighbour disputes” and there was “no actual evidence”. A recommendation for mediation was appropriate but this does not appear to have been pursued at this time. Had mediation been carried out at the earliest opportunity it may have helped resolve the dispute between the neighbours and rebuild the resident’s trust in the landlord. The records indicated that the landlord was looking to set up mediation in September 2021. This was further offered to the resident in October 2021 when it was declined.
There was contact between the police and landlord on 12 October 2021. The police advised that it was carrying out a public order investigation. This was following a report from the resident that his neighbour had shouted abuse at him, which had referred to his race. It said that it would tell the landlord the outcome of its investigation. It further raised the resident’s expressed wish to be moved. In its letter to the resident on 19 October 2021, the landlord said it could take no further action against his neighbour. She had received a warning from the police and there had been no further incidents. It said that the resident did not qualify for a management move and made an offer of mediation, which the resident declined. This case was 27 October 2021. The landlord failed to follow up the resident’s reports of ASB caused by his neighbour. With a report of verbal abuse, which was also raised with the police, the landlord should have spoken with both parties and carried out its own investigations as to what had occurred in accordance with its policy.
A fourth ASB case record was opened by the landlord on 7 December 2021. This captured both residents as the complainant and the perpetrator. The initial record on this case stated that the resident was in fear of his neighbour who it described as a “retired female who has never harmed anyone”. It also captured that the resident’s neighbour was very upset by the situation and felt “targeted”. This case further captured the landlord’s attempts to arrange a visit with the resident following the completion of its stage 1 complaint. This was declined by the resident as he wanted to meet with a manager. It is unclear why the landlord did not pursue this meeting further.
On 6 December 2021 the resident emailed the landlord. In this he said “… whatever you said to … it seems to have worked as I have not heard a thing in the past few days”. He further said that he wished his landlord communicated more and explained that “sometimes a simple reply or acknowledgement can help”. He said that he had autistic traits and that the situation with his neighbour had “blown my mind, my routines, sleep patterns, eating patterns have all [been] knocked out of sync”. This caused him to struggle when he did not understand something and that this caused him to “vent”. He said that he just needed to be listened to. It is not clear if the landlord responded to this email which provided an insight into the frustrations of the resident.
This fourth ASB case record was closed, and a closure letter sent to the resident on 25 January 2022. These case records also capture other contact with the resident, both in relation to his formal complaint about the handling of his reports of ASB and communications about repairs. This is not appropriate and has resulted in confused record keeping. The number of separate records also leads to overlap and fails to show a clear action plan.
The incidents reported by the resident ranged from noise late at night and in the early hours of the morning, his concerns that his neighbour was watching him and standing outside his house in the middle of the night and that she had thrown dead animals into his garden. He also reported the poor state of her garden, his concern that it was attracting rats and presented a fire risk.
The landlord’s ASB case records contain little evidence of the actions it took in response to the resident’s reports of ASB by his neighbour. His neighbour was spoken to in March 2020. It appears that counter allegations were made, and it raised a joint case record in December 2021, but there is little detail of these, or evidence of action taken. These case records do not capture details of any actions taken to address the reported ASB. There are no recorded visits, face to face meetings, letters or formal warnings sent. There is no evidence that the landlord undertook wider investigations into each party’s behaviour by speaking with other neighbours. It has also not recorded if it considers any other intervention other than the offer of mediation.
The resident reported that his neighbour had been verbally abusive towards him in July 2021 and had referred to his race. This he reported to both his landlord and the police. The police initially spoke with his neighbour about the incident and that following his request to press charges she was formally interviewed. The landlord’s records show contact with the police in October 2021, and it has latterly provided information that the CPS confirmed that no further action was to be taken. There is no evidence that the landlord issued a tenancy warning to the resident’s neighbour. Its stage 1 complaint response encouraged the resident to press charges, to enable it to take further action. This was not done and by encouraging the resident to take formal action this can only have further damaged the relationship between them. There is also no evidence that the landlord was in regular contact with the police regarding the incident.
The landlord has indicated that it considered the resident’s reports of a hate crime as a criminal matter. As there is only one recorded incident of shouted verbal abuse, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to speak with his neighbour and issue a verbal reminder about her tenancy obligations. It is acknowledged that a single incident of this nature may not have been sufficient for the landlord to take tenancy enforcement action. There is no record that this has been explained to the resident. Indeed, by failing to discuss his reports directly with him, he was not given any information as to the actions available to the landlord and what would be required for it to proceed with these. An offer to meet with the resident was made by the landlord as an outcome to his stage 1 complaint but this was declined by the resident.
The landlord failed to maintain a neutral tone within its recording of the reports of ASB and there is a use of emotive language. The records also indicate that the landlord failed to remain impartial in its investigations.
Its records state that it received no evidence of the incidents reported by the resident. However, there is evidence within the messages between the resident and the Neighbourhood Co-ordinator, that either photos or video and sound recordings were provided. The resident was asked to stop using the messaging platform in an email from the Tenancy Solutions Manager on 2 November 2021. It said that it could not take tenancy enforcement action on the ground of ASB without evidence. It said that it had explained that the evidence provided did not meet the threshold for legal action. The landlord further advised the resident that while it understood his frustration, the tone of his emails was both “aggressive and threatening” and this would not be tolerated.
The landlord appropriately offered mediation, but there was a delay in this being arranged. As a result of the delay the initial willingness by the resident to participate in this was lost. The is no evidence that the landlord considered other actions available to it such as warning letters or the use of an acceptable behaviour contract. It opened and closed a number of case records but did not follow the suggested actions through any of these.
It is clear from the correspondence between the resident and the landlord that he had become increasingly frustrated and did not understand why the landlord had taken no action. He was particularly upset by the landlord’s complaint responses and its advice that the case was closed and that he should not continue to raise historic issues. The landlord appears to have taken a very narrow view about the resident’s reports of ASB, failing to sufficiently investigate these and communicate with the resident a clear way forward.
A letter was sent on behalf of the resident from his GP practice on 13 December 2021. This set out the incidents of ASB reported by the resident, including racial abuse. It explained that these had disrupted the resident’s appetite and sleep pattern and had left him with low mood and feeling suicidal. Concern was expressed for the resident and asked the landlord to offer available support to resolve the situation. In response the landlord asked for a signed letter of authority to enable it to discuss the case further. This does not appear to have been provided or for there to have been further follow up.
The landlord’s ASB policy details that it takes a victim-centred approach and will use a range of tools to manage ASB including risk assessment matrixes and action plans. While the resident advised the landlord of his vulnerabilities due to his autism and the impact the reported ASB was having on his health, the landlord did not demonstrate that it considered these vulnerabilities.
This Service has not seen any evidence to show that the landlord completed a victim risk assessment or agreed a further action plan with the resident or his neighbour. This was a missed opportunity to accurately identify any vulnerabilities that the resident had and the potential impact on him of the behaviours reported. This may also have helped to reduce some of the resident’s feeling that the landlord was taking no action.
There is evidence of poor case management throughout in the landlord’s handling of the resident reports of ASB which amounts to maladministration.

Handling of the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments in its contact with him.

The resident had said that he believes that his landlord failed to take account of his autism when dealing with his complaints. The resident informed his landlord that he had autistic traits through his reports of ASB. A letter from his GP’s surgery and the resident’s own email in early December 2021 set out the impact that the ASB incidents were having on him and how this directly impacted his autism. He also made it clear that without clear communication he became frustrated and that this caused him to “vent”. He said he just needed to be listened to. His autism was also highlighted to the landlord by the police.
Despite this the landlord has advised that it has no record of the resident’s vulnerabilities. It has said that when he signed the tenancy agreement it did not notify them of any vulnerabilities, other than advising that he had suffered an accident. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to capture the resident’s reported vulnerability within its housing records. No evidence has been presented that the resident had made a request for specific adjustment to be made, although he had expressed that it was important to him that he was kept informed and that he became anxious and frustrated when there was no regular communication.
The landlord has advised that it opened a support case on 31 August 2022. It wrote to both the resident and the resident’s GP. The resident had advised that he would not accept calls from the landlord, following the restrictions placed on him in relation to his contact with the landlord. A note on this case recorded on 20 September 2022 indicates that it had not heard back from the resident’s GP and no further action appears to have been taken.
There seems to have been several opportunities for the landlord to contact the resident and put appropriate measures in place to ensure that he was receiving regular updates. It is understood that the resident’s frustrations with the issues surrounding him, and the landlord’s apparent lack of response may have led to some of the frustrated and ultimately abusive conversations that he had with the landlord’s staff.

Response to reports it received about the resident’s conduct towards its staff

The resident’s contact with the landlord became increasingly abusive over time. Aside from the issues around his reports of ASB he had contact with his landlord about other issues such as repairs. The Service as had sight of the resident’s email communication with the landlord through his reports of ASB. Additionally, the landlord has shared recordings of telephone calls made to its service, which it had also shared with the resident.
The resident was initially advised to modify the tone of his contact with the landlord on 9 December 2021, and was provided with a copy of a previous letter about his behaviour sent by the landlord in 2017. Further, through its follow up response to his complaint, it said that the nature of his contact was “too frequent, …demanding, and abusive to colleagues”. The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 December 2021 informing him that his ASB case had been closed and that the evidence he had provided did not meet its statutory noise thresholds. It understood that he did not accept this outcome but said that he had exhausted its processes. It said that he should not contact it further regarding closed matters, if he did so this may be referred to its solicitors.
In February 2022, the landlord took the decision to consider the resident’s contacts in line with its unacceptable behaviour policy. This followed a number of telephone calls to its call centre, where the resident had been aggressive and abusive towards members of staff. It also looked at the tone and words used in some of his emails.
The landlord opened a fifth ASB case record on 22 February 2022. This captured a range of contact between the resident and the landlord, some predating the case being opened, alongside the action that the landlord had initiated in line with its unacceptable behaviour policy. It recorded that the landlord had made a report to the police due to verbal abuse aimed at its staff by the resident which included hate related comments based on gender and race. It recorded that the police had issued words of advice to the resident on 21 February 2022.
The landlord’s solicitors wrote to the resident on 2 March 2022. This focused on a specific period of time and gave examples of the content of calls made. It said that the landlord had put restrictions in place for his future contact. He was advised that he should not contact the landlord via the telephone other than in an emergency and provided him with email addresses for all non- emergency contact. It said that all communication must be undertaken in a “respectful manner free of abusive or offensive language”. It further warned that continued behaviour of this nature could impact his future housing as his landlord may have to provide a reference. It concluded that “should you continue to make such vexatious and racist comments then legal action will be considered. This correspondence is the final warning.”
Given the content of the calls and the resident’s emails, it was appropriate for the landlord to take steps in line with its unacceptable behaviour policy. This letter did not however provide a review period as recommended under its policy. Given the time that has elapsed it may now be appropriate for the landlord to consider reviewing its position on this.
It is understood that the resident had become increasingly frustrated by what he saw as a failure by his landlord to follow up on his reports of ASB, and most importantly to him to take action about the verbal abuse he had suffered. As he considered this to be racist in nature, his contact with the landlord sought to raise the issue as to how this would be viewed had he been the perpetrator. This however was expressed in an indelicate manner and raised the issue of race inappropriately. The resident had expressed to his landlord his frustrations at its lack of regular and timely communication, advising that due to his autism this caused him to become anxious and to “vent”. However, it would not have been acceptable for the landlord to have continued to tolerate abuse of its staff. Such behaviour affects the wellbeing of staff and their ability to perform their role, which the landlord has a duty to look after.

Complaint handling.

It is unclear from the information provided by the landlord when the resident first raised his initial complaint. The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint reply on 30 November 2021. This addressed several specific issues relating to the resident’s reports of ASB and acknowledged that the resident felt that it had failed to support him or consider the impact that the issues were having on him.
The resident made a request to escalate his complaint, but the landlord declined to do. It is not clear if the refusal to escalate the complaint was communicated directly to the resident. The landlord’s tenancy solutions team provided a follow up complaint response on 13 December 2021, responding to the points raised by the resident. It did not refer to his request to escalate his complaint or the landlord’s refusal to do so. The correspondence advised that the case had been closed.
The landlord’s complaint policy indicates that a complaint of ASB “will not be considered a complaint about its service, unless it does not follow what it says in its ASB or neighbour disputes policy”. The landlord had acknowledged at stage 1 that the resident was unhappy with the level of support provided to him. As such, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider the wider aspect of his complaint and escalate this to stage 2. That the landlord did not take such action was a missed opportunity.
In April 2022 the resident completed an online complaint form about the letter he had received from the landlord’s solicitors. He appears to have submitted this several times. In response the landlord advised that it had provided the evidence on which the letter had been based, in the form of telephone recordings. It further said that it would wait for a request for information from the Ombudsman, as the resident had raised his complaint with the Service. It further wrote to him on 10 May 2022 to explain why his earlier complaint had not been escalated to stage 2. It said:
1. It had decided that as the complaint was not upheld and there was no new evidence, the complaint was closed.
2. Its approach was to assign a new ASB investigating officer. They were to arrange a meeting to discuss the case and “offer a fresh perspective on it”. The resident had declined to meet with the landlord.
3. It noted a learning point that it would ensure in the future that it was clearer in its communication about its decision to close a case.
The Service wrote to the landlord on 16 June 2022 requesting it to either respond to the resident at stage 2 or write to advise that it would not escalate his complaint. The resident also contacted his landlord on the same date in response to communication from it. He said he wanted his complaint to be formally investigated. He wanted his landlord to take action against his neighbour for breach of tenancy due to the verbal abuse he suffered, and he would refuse the landlord access to his home, until this was resolved. The landlord confirmed to the resident on 21 June 2022 that it would be considering his complaint at stage 2. A formal response was provided by the landlord on 22 July 2022. Within this it said that:
1. It had reviewed the complaint with its Head of Housing Services and identified “several lessons learnt which would have helped avoid the increased frustration experienced by the resident”.
2. The early handling of the reports of abuse would have benefited from a call from a manager, or at least an explanation as to why this was not possible.
3. Additionally, the request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 could have been dealt with differently. It said that it was updating its complaints process and would take these lessons learnt into account.
4. It also made an offer of compensation for the resident’s stress and inconvenience.
The landlord failed to follow its own complaint handling policy and its action were not in accordance with the guidance set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It is expected that a landlord will provide a resident with a detailed explanation as to why it has declined to accept or escalate a complaint. The landlord should also maintain a full record of the complaint from the initial contact with the resident.
The landlord’s failure to provide clear information to the resident in a timely manner setting out its refusal to escalate his complaint, led to the resident’s increasing frustration. The landlord did not provide the resident with timely updates or agree with him a clear action plan for addressing his report’s of ASB. Better management of its communication with the resident may have prevented the breakdown in the landlord tenant relationship. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints. It is noted that an offer of compensation was made by the landlord within its stage 2 response in recognition of stress and inconvenience. However, having considered the length of time over which the formal complaint remained outstanding and the landlord’s failures in addressing his reports of ASB, this was not proportionate. The Ombudsman has given consideration to the resident’s circumstances and the impact of the landlord’s failings on him. With reference to our Guidance on Remedies, an order of a more appropriate amount of compensation has been made.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, including reports of a hate crime.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments in its contact with him.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports it received about the resident’s conduct towards its staff.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. The landlord must provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £800 in compensation, calculated as follows:
  1. £600 to recognise the landlord’s failure to appropriately handle the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. £200 for its failure to escalate the resident’s complaint in line with its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

This is in addition to the landlord’s previous offer of £175 compensation at stage 2 of its complaint’s process. It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by the Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears where they exist.

The landlord must ensure that it has a clear record of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must undertake a full review of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB incidents. It should consider the actions it took, its communication with the resident and its ASB case record keeping identifying learning points. It should provide a report to this service of its findings and action plan to avoid repeating these failures in the future.

Recommendations

The landlord should put in place a process to rebuild its relationship with the resident. This should include reviewing the contact restrictions currently in place and providing the resident with a single named point of contact.
The landlord should contact the resident to discuss his communication preferences and what measures it may be able to implement to support him.