Peabody Trust 2018 (202009689)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009689

Peabody Trust

29 April 2022

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:

1. reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. concerns about the security of the communal entry door.
3. reports about the functionality of the spyhole camera.
4. queries about the window replacement.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a building consisting of five flats.
3. The resident has vulnerabilities, which the landlord is aware of.
4. In February 2019, the Ombudsman investigated a complaint from the resident concerning the landlord’s handling of their request to replace the windows. At the time of the investigation, the landlord advised that the windows were due for replacement in the 2018/19 financial year.
5. Following the investigation, the Ombudsman recommended that the landlord provide the complainant with an update as to when they could expect the window replacement to take place. It wrote to the resident in March 2019 and explained that it had to re-submit section 20 consultations to the leaseholders in the block, and the first stage of the consultation process was due to start by the end of that month.
6. In June 2020, the Ombudsman investigated a complaint under reference 201903880, from the resident concerning the landlord’s response to their reports of ASB. The Ombudsman found a service failure in the landlord’s response to the ASB, as it found that there was an unreasonable delay in it installing a spyhole camera. The Ombudsman recommended that the landlord re-offer the installation of the spyhole camera.

Summary of events

7. On 22 June 2020, the landlord received a report from the resident’s mother, about an incident involving a neighbour’s daughter. She reported that the week before, the neighbour’s daughter was arrested following a domestic incident involving her mother. She said the daughter returned to the property over the weekend and was ringing the resident’s doorbell, which frightened them. The resident’s mother confirmed that the incident was reported to the police.
8. The landlord recorded an ASB case and emailed the resident with notification. As the resident’s preferred contact method was email, it asked if they would be willing to discuss the report in detail over the phone. The resident confirmed that they were happy to do so and the parties spoke that day. The resident explained that the issue was impacting their mental health, as the neighbour’s daughter was frequently ringing buzzers to gain access to her mother’s flat despite the police involvement. The resident explained that they wanted the landlord to take action in relation to this and issue a warning.
9. The following day, the resident emailed the landlord and informed that the police had notified that there was a Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVPO) against the neighbour’s daughter. If she attended the property, she would be in breach of the order and the police were to be contacted. The resident informed that the order was in place until 15 July 2020 and asked the landlord to inform the other residents in the dwelling about the order. 
10. The landlord agreed to inform the other residents of the block and inform them of what they could do if they saw the neighbour’s daughter on the premises. It explained that it would close the ASB case, as an open case would indicate that it would actively be involved, but it was the police who would be active on the matter.
11. The resident confirmed that they were okay with the landlord’s decision to close the case, as the DPVO was in place until 15 July 2020. They asked if the landlord could review the matter once the order expired and asked if it would still provide the spyhole camera or if they could install CCTV themselves and recharge the landlord for this. The resident asked the landlord to also remind the other residents not to allow other resident’s visitors into the property. The landlord agreed to contact the resident after 15 July 2020 to review the case and said it would contact the other residents. It said that regarding the spyhole camera, there was no budget for it that year and that it is unlikely this would be approved but agreed to still ask the community safety team.
12. On the 1 July 2020, the landlord recorded an expression of dissatisfaction from the resident, as it understood they were unhappy with the handling of the ASB case. It wrote to the resident, noting that the case related to a report they made on behalf of their neighbour. The landlord said that following its investigation, it found that the ASB case had been closed with the resident’s agreement. It explained that on this basis, it was not clear why the resident had raised their complaint. Speaking of its response to previous issues the resident had raised about ASB, it said that it had offered the resident support which they declined and agreed to install the spyhole camera, but the resident failed to engage with it to get the camera installed. It said that regarding rehousing, the resident could contact its housing options team to discuss options for rehousing. The landlord apologised that the resident was not happy with the way it dealt with the case however, it found no reason to uphold the complaint on the basis of its findings.
13. The resident responded to the landlord and said that the complaint was a formal complaint and not an expression of dissatisfaction. They confirmed that they did not report ASB on behalf of a neighbour and asked the landlord to clarify its point about this. The resident said that they felt they were a victim of harassment and said that they did not recall agreeing to the case being closed. They said that they understood that the case would remain open and be reviewed once the DPVO expired on 15 July 2020 and in the meantime, the other residents would be made aware of the order.
14. In response to the landlord’s point about the installation of the spy hole camera, the resident advised the landlord to refer to the Ombudsman’s determination dated June 2020. The resident confirmed that they were not seeking rehousing as this would not resolve the situation in the property. The resident explained that they did not believe that the landlord followed its own policies when responding to their report of ASB and noted that they wanted the complaint to be reviewed again on this basis.
15. On 7 July 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed that the spyhole camera had been approved again for installation. The resident acknowledged this and reported that sanitary towels had been thrown into the garden. They confirmed this had been removed but explained that they suspected this was done by their neighbour whose daughter was the subject of the ASB report. The resident also asked the landlord if it had informed the other neighbours about the DVPO at that stage and mentioned that the burden to report the neighbour’s daughter if she was seen, relied on her as she was the only resident aware of the order.
16. The landlord responded the following day with the contractor’s details for the resident to contact and arrange the installation of the spyhole camera. It confirmed that it received a report about the sanitary towels and confirmed that it received an account of events from another neighbour within the block. The landlord said that it sent letters to all residents on the correct disposal of waste. It confirmed that it also spoke with one other resident in the block about the DPVO but could not get through to speak with the other two residents in the dwelling. It agreed to attempt contact with them again that day and reiterated that it would undertake a review of the ASB after the DPVO expired.
17. Between 14 and 17 July 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to chase it for a response to their complaint escalation request. On 17 July, the landlord apologised for the delay responding and said that the response would be issued that day. It later asked the resident if they would be willing to discuss the complaint over the phone, as it wanted to clarify their concerns. It is not clear whether or not the parties spoke after this, but the landlord followed up with the resident on 21 July 2020.
18. It asked the resident if a date for the camera installation had been agreed and, if it could discuss the matter with the neighbour’s daughter, following the expiry of the DPVO. The resident responded the same day that they were still awaiting a date for the camera installation. In relation to the ASB case, they said that the police had not been in contact and agreed to a conversation with the landlord, if it followed this up by email. They confirmed their availability for the landlord to call, which it did later that day.
19. The landlord emailed the resident with a summary of what it agreed. It advised them to expect a call that day, with a date for the camera to be installed. It said regarding the ASB reported, that the resident confirmed that there had been no further incidents but, the daughter was still frequently present at the property and the police had given no further update. The landlord said that it was agreed that the resident would contact the police for an update. 
20. In relation to the formal complaint, the landlord noted that the resident informed it that they believed that there had been miscommunication and delays in it responding to important matters. They said that the complaint related to issues surrounding their mental health and disability, which they did not believe had previously been addressed by the landlord. The landlord said that the parties agreed that the previous complaints would be dropped and matters would be considered from afresh, starting with the installation of the spyhole camera. The landlord agreed to provide the resident with one final response and said that going forward, it will try to address any concerns that the resident raised, promptly and meet their desired outcome, if practicable.
21. The resident responded, on 23 July 2020, that the camera installation had been booked for 29 July 2020 however, said that they had been notified that this could no longer go ahead due to stock issues. The resident said that the change was causing confusion and worry for them as they were not aware as to when this would happen. They said that the situation with the neighbour’s daughter was traumatic and draining and that the daughter was still frequently present at the property causing disturbance, despite the DPVO that was in place. They said they could not understand how the other residents were not told about the DVPO, as had they been, they could have assisted in reinforcing it. The resident said that although it was previously agreed that all previous complaints would be dropped, they had still not received the final response as promised and the agreed installation date for the camera had changed. The resident said that their desired outcomes were:

1. For the camera to be installed.
2. For the complaint to be investigated and resolved.
3. For the landlord to adhere to its ASB, Complaints and Vulnerable Person Policies.
4. For the landlord to address the issues highlighted in their complaint with special attention to the needs of people who identify as vulnerable or have accessibility needs.

22. The resident said that they would be willing to meet with the landlord to share their experience and confirmed that they wanted to progress the complaint further in the complaint process.
23. The landlord acknowledged the resident and explained that it appreciated how the resident felt about the change in the installation appointment date but agreed to follow this up. It explained in relation to the final response, that it had a backlog of work and would respond as soon as possible. It confirmed that was unable to reach two of the residents to inform them about the DPVO but had carried out the review of the case after the 15 July 2020 as agreed. It said that should another incident arise; it would work it would work closely with the police. It agreed to set a date for the parties to meet and discuss and said it would contact the resident separately about this.
24. On 9 August 2020, the resident’s mother contacted the landlord to report another incident involving the resident’s neighbour’s daughter. She reported that the resident had been subject to verbal threats from the neighbour’s daughter the weekend prior. As well as this, she reported that the spyhole camera the landlord installed on 28 July 2020, was not ‘fit for purpose’ as it would not record and the resident had not been provided with a manual or guidance on how to use it. The resident’s mother also raised concern about the security of the communal front entrance door and said that the police had advised that the door was not ‘fit for purpose’.
25. The landlord acknowledged the email and said that as the police had already been involved, it would request full disclosure from it as to what actions it had taken so that it could follow up from there. It said regarding the front communal door, that it would ask for this to be investigated and any faults rectified but advised the resident’s mother to report a repair, to be attended as soon as possible, if the door was not locking. The landlord agreed to write to the residents again to remind them not to allow the neighbour’s daughter access to the property. In addition to this, it agreed to ask the contractor who installed the spyhole camera to provide information to the resident about how to operate it. It reiterated that if the resident’s life was threatened, they should call the police and it would continue to support in any way possible.
26. The landlord and resident spoke on 10 August 2020, and it followed this with an email the following day. In relation to the ASB, it reiterated that it would ask the police for a full disclosure on the actions it was taking regarding neighbour’s daughter’s attendance to the property. It said that depending on the outcome of this, it may send another letter to residents about not allowing her or strangers access to the building via the communal door. It acknowledged that the resident had raised a repair for the communal door but said that the door would need to be assessed first before any repairs took place. It said that it asked for the contractors to liaise with the resident on the day they attend so that the resident could explain the issue they experienced with the door. It confirmed again that it would ask the contractor whether a manual was available for the spyhole. It also said that it would speak with the rehousing team for information about the resident’s options for rehousing and would pass this over to the resident once received.
27. The resident responded explaining that they understood from the conversation that the landlord would be changing the locks on the communal door however, the landlord’s email indicated that the door would need to be assessed first. They explained that they believe the locks would be changed and that they had been given false expectation that the landlord was offering support. The resident asked that the landlord refrain from calling them going forward and keep all communication in writing as they felt that the landlord had been dishonest.
28. The landlord clarified that it was the resident who had informed it that they had booked for a lock change after the police had mentioned concern about the security of the door. The landlord confirmed that it followed up with its repairs team, who confirmed that the door would need to be assessed in the first instance by a specialist. It apologised that the resident felt that it had not been truthful but explained that it was relaying the information it received from its repairs team.
29. On 12 August 2020, the landlord was emailed by a third party organisation acting on behalf of the resident. It provided a crime reference number and noted that the resident had tried to find out who in the police was dealing with the case. It said that it understood the landlord could not disclose what actions it was taking in respect of the ASB case but said that the landlord could call if they wanted to discuss their involvement.
30. The landlord provided its response to the resident’s complaint on 20 August 2020. It explained:

1. That initially, it responded to the residents complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, which it said was the initial stage of its complaints process. It said that it was informed that the resident had made the report about the ASB on behalf of their neighbour and apologised if this was not the case. It said that the police had not advised it that the resident was a victim of harassment, but said it would follow up with the police about this and provide the resident with its feedback.
2. That it understood the resident agreed for the ASB case to closed given the police intervention and the agreement to have the spy camera installed. It clarified that it could not afford to install CCTV to the block and this was still the case. It noted that the resident previously declined its offer to refer them to the Tenancy Family and Support but, if they wished to reconsider this, it would refer them.
3. If the resident was not happy with its response, they could raise a stage 1 complaint and an independent member of staff will review the complaint and respond. It apologised that it did not meet the resident’s expectations and noted a review by another member of staff may be the best way forward.

31. The resident’s representative contacted the landlord for a response on 1 September 2020, as they had not received a response to their email to the landlord on 12 August 2020. They said that the resident had concerns as the survey of the communal front door was outstanding and the issue with the spyhole camera had not been addressed.
32. The landlord responded on 3 September 2020 and apologised for the delay in the response. It agreed to look into what happened with the door survey and explained that it would ask the contractor about the spyhole camera. It said that it could not get through to the resident whose daughter was the subject of the ASB complaint but would follow up and provide the representative with an update.
33. The resident’s representative responded and expressed dissatisfaction with the timeliness of the landlord’s response and the fact that it did not copy the resident into the correspondence. It noted that the landlord had made promises to the resident and had not followed through on actions in a timely way.
34. Between 14 and 19 October 2020, the landlord was in contact with the contractor who installed the spyhole camera. The contractor confirmed that the resident had been shown how to use the camera and fit new batteries and was happy at the time. It agreed to attend to the property again and did on 19 October 2020 however, it was not able to gain access. It reported back to the landlord that on attendance, it could not see any damage and had pressed the bell but could not hear it ring from inside. It suggested that it could have been the batteries that required replacing.
35. The landlord informed the resident that the contractor had attended but could not gain access. It asked the resident for a suitable date the contractor could attend again. In relation to the communal door, it said that the contractor was due to attend that day but it had not heard anything back so it was chasing this.
36. The resident’s representative also contacted the landlord for an update on 19 October 2020. It said that following a conversation it had with the landlord on 14 October 2020, it understood that the landlord was to follow up on the matter of the communal door assessment and the spyhole camera. The landlord responded with copies of the communication it had with the contractor regarding its attendance to the property for the spyhole camera and confirmed that it was awaiting an update on the assessment of the front communal door.
37. The resident contacted this Service on 4 December 2020, for assistance with their complaint. They said that they complained about the landlord’s response to their reports of ASB, concerns they raised about the spyhole camera and their queries about the window replacement to the block. The resident said that they had a stage two complaint but had not received a response from the landlord. This Service contacted the landlord and requested that it provide the resident a response to issues raised. It responded and agreed to contact the resident about the spyhole camera. It said that details of the complaint had been sent to the resident’s representative to respond to so that the complaint could be progressed. Regarding the windows, the landlord explained that as a result of the pandemic it was unable to progress with the investment works. It explained that it had asked for an update from the investment team regarding the windows and had requested an update from the contractor in relation to the communal door repair.
38. The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 January 2021, confirming that it had raised a stage one complaint. It wrote to the resident again on 19 January 2021, advising that it would aim to respond by 26 January 2021, as it was awaiting information for the response. The resident contacted this Service on 26 January 2021, as they did not receive the landlord’s response therefore, we followed up with the landlord. The same day, the landlord issued its stage one response. It said that:

1. It had not received a date from the resident for when its contractor could return to check the spyhole camera. It asked the resident to confirm their availability.
2. A repair was raised for the lock on the communal door to be renewed and once a date for this was confirmed it would inform the resident. It apologised for the time taken to resolve the matter and explained it had reinforced the service expectations with its contractor.
3. The ASB report the resident made was fully investigated and actions were taken by the relevant stakeholders. It said that it was not able to share the details of the case, due to data protection. It apologised that the resident was impacted by the incident and advised that if any further incident occurs, the resident should inform it and it will open a new case and agree an action plan for resolution.
4. It confirmed that the resident’s block had been placed on a priority list for a stock condition survey, which would assist in determining when the window replacement would be carried out. It said that restrictions were currently in place due to the pandemic but surveys would go ahead once the restrictions were lifted.

39. The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 February 2021, explaining that they was not happy with the response or the time taken for the landlord to provide the response. They said that an appointment had not previously been booked when the landlord’s contractor attended for the spyhole camera. In relation to the reported ASB, they said that they felt unsupported by the landlord in relation to this and noted that no action plan had previously been agreed.
40. The resident explained that in previous years, they had been informed that the windows were due for replacement and this did not happen. They acknowledged that restrictions were in place at the time however, noted the restrictions were not in place in the previous years.
41. Regarding the door, the resident explained that they considered the lock change rather than a replacement door to be pointless and rejected the landlord’s apology for the time taken to complete this.
42. The resident noted that the landlord previously mentioned rehousing and did not follow this up and the landlord had not offered them any redress. The resident confirmed that they wished to progress their complaint to stage two as they did not consider the complaint resolved.
43. The resident emailed the landlord again on 8 February 2021, noting that they had not received a response to their escalation request. It responded on 10 February 2021, acknowledged the complaint and advised a response would be sent by 10 March 2021.
44. The landlord issued its final response on 10 March 2021. It agreed to arrange for the spyhole camera to be checked once the resident confirmed their availability. In relation to the ASB case, it acknowledged that the resident had raised a formal complaint after the ASB had been closed, but this was logged an expression of dissatisfaction initially. It recognised that it should have logged a formal complaint in the first instance as requested and apologised that it had done so. It noted that there had been discrepancies in the complaint response to the resident on 1 July 2020 and said that it could not see that the resident had received a response to points raised in their email dated 3 July 2020. It clarified its position on the matters as follows:

1. The ASB report was not made on behalf of the resident’s neighbour but because of concerns the resident had about their own safety. It confirmed that it recorded details of the incident.
2. Other residents in the dwelling were written to and its records showed that it spoke with the resident and confirmed via email on 23 June 2020, that the ASB case would be closed.
3. It found that it had investigated the reported ASB incident correctly and took the relevant actions required in line with its ASB policy. It said that an ASB case does not need to remain open when no further reports are made of an incident. It acknowledged that due to historical events and the fact that the spyhole camera had not yet been installed at the time the case was closed, the resident would have had concerns about the case being closed.
4. It said that the resident had informed that they were not looking to be rehoused but as they may have changed their position, it asked for details of housing options to be emailed to the resident.

45. The landlord apologised that the resident had not received a response to the issues at the time they were raised. In relation to the window replacement, it said it was still waiting for restrictions to be lifted but reiterated that the resident’s block would be prioritised for the surveys once they commenced.
46. The landlord said that it would ask the relevant team to email the resident for further discussions but said that a meeting may not be possible due to the restrictions in place as a result of the pandemic. It offered the resident £100 for its complaint handling and £100 for the time and trouble taken to progress the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Response to reports of ASB

47.  The Ombudsman has previously reviewed a complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB under case reference 201903880. The complaint finalised the landlord’s complaint procedure in January 2020 and was determined by this Service in June 2020. While the information about case reference 201903880 has been noted for context, this assessment will consider the landlord’s response to the ASB from 22 June 2020. As these are matters that exhausted the landlord’s complaints process on 10 March 2021 which is the subject of this investigation.
48. The landlord’s ASB policy explains the types of behaviour that it considers to be antisocial. This includes verbal abuse, threatening behaviour and criminal behaviour or activity. It explains that it will use a range of preventative measures proportionate to the seriousness, impact and frequency of the behaviour, the level of risk it possesses and the evidence available to support the case.
49. The policy explains that the landlord will respond to reports of high risk ASB within one working day and lower risk cases within five working days. It will agree an action plan with the complainant and any witnesses and keep them informed of the actions it takes. In addition, it will contact them to inform the case is being closed and provide reasons why.
50. The landlord received the initial report of ASB from the resident’s mother on 22 June 2020 and the same day, logged an ASB case. It also contacted the resident directly the same day to inform of this, and obtained further details about the incident during a call with the resident. After the landlord received notification about the DPVO against the alleged perpetrator, it confirmed that it would close the case and the reason for its decision to do so. In addition, it provided the resident with clarification that they could contact it again if any further issues arose.
51. The landlord’s response was in line with its policy. It responded the same day and promptly sought clarification on the details of the incident to inform its understanding and its action going forward. Its decision to close the case was explained to the resident and was reasonable as the DPVO was put in place and enforceable by the police. Even though the responsibility to enforce the order would be on the police, the landlord agreed to the resident’s request to inform the other residents of the dwelling about the order and what they could do if they saw the neighbour’s daughter on the premises.
52. The landlord provided the resident the opportunity to challenge its decision to close the ASB case. The resident agreed to the closure of the case but asked the landlord to follow up on the case, once the DPVO expired and it agreed. This was reasonable. The DPVO was put in place as a short term measure therefore, following up with the resident after its expiry is an opportunity for the landlord to review if it was required to take any further action.
53. Regarding the landlord’s agreement to notify the other residents about the DPVO, it explained to the resident on 8 July 2020 that it could only reach one of the three other residents in the dwelling. It is not clear how the landlord intended to contact all the residents or why it was not possible to contact them all. Nevertheless, as the DPVO was issued by the courts it was not the landlord’s responsibility to enforce or manage this. 
54. After the DPVO expired on 5 July 2020, the landlord followed through on its agreement and contacted the resident on 21 July 2020 to discuss the ASB case. The resident confirmed that no further incidents had taken place, therefore there was no reason for the landlord to act at that time. The resident, however, did confirm that the neighbour’s daughter was still regularly attending to the property thus, its advice that the resident contact the police was appropriate.
55. In its email to the resident on 23 July 2020, the landlord reassured the resident that it would work closely with the police on further action to be taken should an incident with the neighbour’s daughter arise again. It received a further report about the neighbour’s daughter’s behaviour toward the resident on 9 August 2020. In response, it explained to the resident what it planned to do and said it would request full disclosure from the police, speak with the mother of the alleged perpetrator, and depending on the outcome of this, may write to all residents advising that the communal door should not be opened to the alleged perpetrator.
56. The landlord’s response to the first report of the ASB was in line with its policy. It responded appropriately in the first instance to the second report it received on 9 August 2020 and detailed the actions it would take in relation this. However, it did not follow through on those actions and did not provide the resident with an update on the progress of the actions promised, its investigation into the report or, confirm whether the case would remain open or closed.
57. When the landlord provided its response the resident’s complaint, it said that it found no service failure in how it had dealt with the first report. It provided the resident with clarification on the steps it had taken as far as its response to the first report. It did not provide an update on the actions it agreed to take to address the second report it received. In response to the complaint, it also agreed to provide the resident with details about their options for rehousing and agreed to contact the resident to arrange for a discussion between the parties to take place, but did not follow this up. 

Response to concerns about the security of the communal entry door.

58. The landlord has a responsibility for the repair to the communal entrance door. Its policy stipulates that it will attend to emergency repairs, where there is a need to avoid an immediate danger to personal health and safety, or serious damage or property, within 24 hours to either make safe or repair. In case of a standard repair where there is no risk to either the customer or the property, it aims to complete these within 35 days. In the case of communal repairs, the landlord states that it will aim to carry out repairs proactively and to the timescales above.
59. The landlord received the first concern about the security of the front door on 9 August 2020, when the resident’s mother reported that the police commented that the door was not ‘fit for purpose’.  The landlord agreed to liaise with the relevant department so that any defects to the door could be investigated and advised the resident’s mother to report if the door was not locking, so that this could be addressed as soon as possible. This was appropriate. The landlord confirmed that a repair to renew the lock had been raised by the resident however, there is no indication that the lock itself was compromised at any time and required an emergency appointment to make it safe.
60. The landlord did follow up with the repairs team about the repair as it agreed. Following this, it confirmed to the resident in its email on 11 August 2020 that the door would need to be assessed in the first instance to determine what repairs were required. At the time the repair report was made, the only information it had been provided was that there was a potential fault with the locking mechanism of the door. To ensure that the appropriate repair was carried out to the door, the landlord’s contractor therefore, had to attend to inspect the door so that it could provide its expert opinion on the condition of the door.
61. In email communication with the resident on 19 October 2020, the landlord confirmed to the resident that although the repair had been scheduled, it did not go ahead. As a result, the repair was rescheduled to be attended to on 19 October 2020 and the landlord agreed to follow up with the contractor about the findings from the visit.
62. This Service has not been provided with the repair records for the door during this period however, by the time this Service contacted the landlord in December 2020, it indicated that it was awaiting a report on the repair to the communal front door. The repair to the lock was eventually completed on 25 January 2021, five months after the initial concern was raised. This is an unreasonable amount of time to complete the repair and exceeds the landlord’s routine repair timeframe.
63. In addition to this, even though the landlord had agreed to follow up with its contractors while the repair was outstanding, it did not keep the resident informed about the developments or progress of the repair.
64. In response to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged the length of time it took to repair the door and apologised for this. It explained that it had reinforced the service standards to its contractor and this was appropriate for it to do given the delay. However, the landlord did not recognise the impact the delay in repairing the door had on the resident, who had made clear their concerns about the neighbour’s daughter gaining access to the property via the communal door and had reported that they had been subjected to ASB.

Response to the concerns about the spyhole camera

65. The landlord installed the spyhole camera on 28 July 2020 and received the report that the camera was not working on 9 August 2020. It agreed to follow up with the contractor to see whether a guide could be provided to the resident about how to use it.
66. The landlord contacted the contractor on 14 October 2020. Two months after it became aware of the concern. This is an unreasonable delay.
67. The landlord arranged for its contractor to attend to the property on 19 October 2020, which it did. The resident was not aware of the appointment and there is no indication that the landlord informed them that the contractor would be attending.
68. As the contractor was not able to gain access when it attended, the landlord contacted the resident the same day and asked that they provide a date that they could reattend to check the camera. It did not receive a response and therefore reiterated that it was awaiting a date from the resident to attend to the camera when it responded to the complaint. There is no evidence that the resident provided a date.

Response to the queries about the window replacement works

69. The Ombudsman investigated a complaint from the resident concerning the landlord’s handling of their request to replace the windows. At the time of the investigation, the landlord informed that the windows were due replacement in the 2018/19 financial year.
70. From the evidence this Service has been provided, it is clear that the landlord sought clarification from the relevant department as to the status of the window replacement works, when the resident submitted the most recent complaint. This was necessary, to provide an informed response to the resident.
71.  In the initial response, the landlord explained that the block had been prioritised for a stock condition survey, which could not go ahead at the time due to the restrictions the government had put in place during the Coronavirus pandemic. It confirmed that once these were lifted, the survey would go ahead and it would inform the resident of the outcome.
72. The resident challenged the landlord’s response and explained that previously, stock condition surveys had been carried out and agreements were made to replace the windows in the years prior to pandemic but not followed through. When the landlord provided its final response to the resident, it failed to provide the resident with clarification as to why it had not gone ahead with replacing the windows, despite its agreement do so, from March 2019, a year before the pandemic.
73. It is understood that at the time of the complaint investigation, the landlord could not go ahead with the relevant stock condition surveys, due to restrictions in place. However, the landlord did not clarify in its response why, it had not followed through on the window replacement it had agreed was going ahead in the 2018/19 financial year.
74. The landlord has advised this Service that it has information about when the windows fall in the programme. However, it is not clear whether the resident has been provided with this information.

Complaints Handling

75. The landlord’s complaints policy states that when an expression of dissatisfaction is received, it would first look to resolve the matter locally. If a resolution is not reached this way, or the approach is inappropriate, a formal complaint may be registered.
76. Its formal complaints procedure has two stages. At stage one, it aims to provide a response within 10 working days. If the complainant is not happy with the outcome, the landlord will try and resolve the outstanding concern but if this is not possible, the case can be progressed to stage two. At stage two, it aims to respond within 15 working days. In the event the landlord is unable to provide a response within the timeframes set out in its procedure, it will inform the complainant of this.
77. The resident confirmed that when they submitted their initial complaint, they clearly indicated that it was a formal complaint. Despite this, the landlord responded as an expression of dissatisfaction and advised that if the resident was not happy, they could raise a stage one complaint.
78. The resident responded and made it clear that they were seeking a review of its response, and requested this on 3 July 2020. However, the landlord did not progress the complaint to stage one at that time and provided a follow up response on 20 August 2020. In this second response, it reiterated again to the resident that they could raise a stage 1 complaint.
79. There was a delay in the landlord escalating the landlord’s complaint to stage one and it took the landlord more than a month to respond. As a result of this the resident had to chase the landlord for a response, and the stage 1 response was not sent until January 2021. This was an unreasonable delay.
80. Once it recorded the stage one complaint, its response was outside of its complaint’s procedure timeframe however, it let the resident know that there was a delay and when to expect the response. At stage two, the response was also outside of the timeframe set out in its procedure, and it informed the resident of the revised response date.
81. When the landlord responded to the formal complaint, it recognised that it should have raised the stage one complaint in the first instance as opposed to the expression of dissatisfaction and that it had not followed its complaints procedure.
82. The landlord’s compensation policy explains that it can offer a maximum of £100 for poor complaints handling. It was appropriate therefore, that it offered the resident £100 in recognition of its poor complaint handling and also offered £100 for their time and trouble taken to progress the matter.
83. However, the landlord failed to address the shortfall in the delivery of service when it responded to the second ASB report it received, did not acknowledge the impact the delay in completing the door repair had on the resident or, explain why there was a delay in completing the window replacement works from March 2019.

Determination (decision) 

84. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the report of ASB.
85. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the report about the security of the communal door.
86. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the report about the functionality of the camera.
87. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s response to the queries about the window replacement.
88. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

89. The landlord did not respond to the second report of ASB it received on 9 August 2020, in line with its policy. Despite its agreement to liaise with the police and contact other residents, it failed to do so and failed to provide the resident with any updates on its response to the incident.
90. In relation to the repair to the communal door, the landlord appropriately recognised the delay in completing the repair but did not offer any redress for the delay.
91. Regarding the report about the functionality of the spyhole camera, once contacted, the contractor promptly attended and as it was not able to gain access, the landlord kept the offer for it to attend and check the camera, open to the resident, which is reasonable.
92. It was appropriate that the landlord recognised the shortfalls in its complaint handling against its policy and it offered the resident compensation for the delays However, the landlord did not fully investigate its handling of the second report of ASB. In addition, it failed to recognise the impact the delay the repair of the communal door had on the resident or offer any redress for this. It also did not apologise or, offer an explanation for the delay in it completing the window replacement works prior to the pandemic.

Orders

93. That within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord is to:

1. Pay the resident the £100 in recognition of its handling of the second ASB report.
2. Pay the resident £100 in recognition of the impact of the time taken to repair the communal front door.
3. Pay the resident £200 in recognition of the complaint handling failures.
4. Write to the resident, with a copy to this Service, confirming when the windows fall in the replacement programme.

94. Once the above orders have been completed, the landlord is to provide confirmation to this Service.

Recommendation

95. The landlord is to review the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code, published 8 March 2022, with particular reference to the use of informal stages in the complaints process.
96. If the landlord has not already done so, it is to pay the resident the £200 it offered in the complaints procedure, in recognition of its complaint handling and the time taken to progress the complaint.