Peabody Trust (202214118)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214118

Peabody Trust

26 March 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. Response to the resident’s request for soundproofing to reduce noise at the property.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) in the block.
3. Handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
4. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the fourth floor of a five storey building. The tenancy started in September 2016. The resident has reported multiple physical and mental health vulnerabilities. This includes being partially sighted. The landlord is aware and its records updated accordingly.
A social worker within adult social services is assisting the resident with her complaint. For the purpose of this report they will be referred to as “the representative.”
The representative described the resident as an autistic adult with multiple complex needs. They said that the resident’s property is next to a lift and a bin chute. They described the noise from these facilities as “horrible” and it affects the resident’s mental health.
The resident obtained a quote to soundproof a wall in the property closest to the lift and bin chute. The quote was originally obtained on 31 May 2019 and revised in February 2022. The landlord advised that it was not responsible for undertaking this work but granted permission to the resident to complete improvement works. The representative considered it the landlord’s responsibility.
The representative raised a complaint on 15 June 2022. The complaint contained multiple points affecting the resident. These included that:
1. Soundproofing to minimise the impact of noise on the resident caused by the lift, bin chute, and actions of other individuals had been raised since December 2018.
2. People using the redundant fifth floor were causing ASB. This included drug use/dealing, noise, and their behaviour posed a fire risk.
3. There had been concerns regarding the conduct of several staff members and their communication with the resident.
4. The landlord had failed to correspond with the resident in the requested manner that was suitable for her needs.
5. The landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 15 July 2022. The landlord apologised that it had failed to provide the resident with written communication in the correct font size. It advised it would carry out sound testing and review the results. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
The representative escalated the resident’s complaint on 23 August 2022 and said the landlord should complete “necessary soundproofing works” and attached a quote of £2,496. A request was again made for the landlord to use the correct font size when sending copies of its replies to the resident.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation on 8 September 2022 and issued its stage 2 response on 4 November 2022. It acknowledged and apologised that it had failed to provide written communication within the agreed font size. It offered £100 compensation for its complaint handling failures and a further £100 for the residents time and trouble. Its position regarding soundproofing remained unchanged.
The representative raised the complaint to the Ombudsman as the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident’s complaint was accepted for investigation on 9 March 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The representative considers the landlord in breach of the Equality Act 2010 (the Act). They say by not making reasonable adjustments for the resident, the landlord should offer compensation for disability discrimination.
There is evidence that in February 2022 the landlord’s legal team responded to a solicitor acting on behalf of the resident. She had claimed damages for breach of the Act. The landlord refuted this claim and advised it would await the particulars of claim from her solicitor. However, the resident’s solicitor did not submit these within the required time and the landlord closed the claim on 8 July 2022. No further action was taken.
In this case, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint and whether it considered its duties under the Act. The Ombudsman has not determined whether the landlord breached the Act as this would be a matter for the courts to decide.
The resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue her concerns using equalities legislation or speak to The Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) for guidance.

Response to the resident’s request for soundproofing to reduce noise at the property

The Ombudsman acknowledges the distress and impact that noise can cause on a resident’s wellbeing. In this case an occupational therapist (OT) report in March 2018 said that the resident had a “strong intolerance to noise”.
Within the representatives communication, they say noise issues include disturbances from the lift, bin chute, and other residents within the block. They describe that these all affect the residents health and wellbeing. As such, concerns were raised with the council’s Environment Health statutory noise team in 2019.
While statutory noise is outside of our jurisdiction, the events are referred to in our report to provide context.
In July 2019 the council’s statutory noise officers served the landlord a noise abatement notice. This was due to noise from the lift. The landlord advised it would consider options to restrict its use while planning repairs and its replacement. This was a reasonable commitment in the circumstances to minimise the effect on the resident.
In March 2020 the council served the landlord with a fixed penalty notice as works to resolve the noise from the lift remained outstanding. The landlord settled the fine and explained that the new lift was stuck in Europe due to the covid-19 pandemic. Considering the unprecedented uncertainty of the pandemic, the landlord’s explanation for the delayed renewal was reasonable.
However, there is evidence from internal communication that risk assessments to assess restricting the lift’s use remained outstanding as of November 2019 and into 2020. While the assessments were an essential step to ensure no other residents were disadvantaged, it showed that the landlord had failed to take timely action to minimise the identified statutory noise. Therefore this was a failing as the resident remained affected by the reported noise.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that it communicated its proposed actions with the resident or the anticipated timeframes required to complete them. This was unreasonable as the lack of information caused the resident distress.
It is noted that following the resident’s initial report of noise there is evidence the landlord inspected the property and wrote to her in June 2019. It gave its permission for her to arrange the installation of soundproofing. The landlord’s letter advised that she would be fully responsible for the costs and it would bear no responsibility for the works. This was appropriate as it demonstrated the landlord following its aids and adaptations policy and recognising the resident’s request as an improvement.
Part E of the Building Regulations came into force in the UK in 2003. It prescribes acoustic insulation levels for new and converted residential buildings and sets decibel levels (dBA) for airborne and impact noise. These standards do not apply to any home built, or converted, before 2003 and there is case law that landlords are under no obligation to soundproof homes to a standard above the one that was in force at the time of its construction. Therefore, the landlord was not responsible for soundproofing the property above the standards applicable at the time of its building.
While the landlord did not accept responsibility for the works, it had received the OT report, inspected the property, and granted her permission to complete soundproofing improvements herself. This was reasonable in the circumstances and in line with its aids and adaptations policy.
The representative continued to consider the landlord responsible for the work and states that it is not making a reasonable adjustment for the resident.
Organisations are only obliged to make adjustments when it is ‘reasonable’ to do so. It is for the courts to determine whether any adjustments (requested or provided) are reasonable. This is not a matter that we can determine. However, the landlord demonstrated acting on the resident’s concerns, inspected the property, and authorised her to undertake the works herself. This was reasonable.
Following the lift replacement and efforts to adjust the bin chute, the resident continued to report noise disturbance. She insisted that soundproofing was required. The government guidance for the permitted noise level using A-weighted decibels (the unit environmental noise is usually measured in) is:
1. 34 dBA (decibels adjusted) if the underlying level of noise is no more than 24 dBA.
2. 10 dBA above the underlying level of noise if this is more than 24 dBA.
It is unclear why the resident did not raise her noise complaint with the Environmental Health’s statutory noise team again. However, there is also no evidence that the landlord undertook steps to assess her reports of noise since the repairs. A landlord has a duty to deal with noise nuisance. This could include taking a multi-agency approach. Furthermore, completing a risk assessment is essential to ensure that the support offered is appropriate. Had the landlord taken these steps, it would have been enabled to understand the resident’s support needs and use the expertise within other organisations. For example the Environmental Health team.
There is evidence that the landlord wrote a complaint response to the resident on 23 July 2021, where it agreed to reinspect the property. Its records state that this was to provide permission and not for it to undertake the work. This was reasonable in the circumstances. It demonstrated the landlord considering the resident’s needs and consenting to the improvement work, while managing her expectations.
If a resident is unable to complete improvement work themselves, the landlord’s aids and adaptations policy provides examples of minor works it will undertake. These include grab rails, stair bannisters rails, and lever taps. The policy states that resident’s must make requests for major adaptations to the local authority’s social services occupational therapy team. It asks residents to apply to their local authority for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) to cover the cost of major aids and adaptations. The landlord says that this information was shared with the resident and she was encouraged to apply. This was appropriate and in line with its policy.
There is evidence that the resident has been unsuccessful securing funding to complete the soundproofing works. It is unclear whether this was via the DFG process or independent charities. While it would be upsetting to have failed to secure grant funding, this does not automatically require the landlord to take responsibility for the request. However, it should not simply rely on it not being liable for improvement work and demonstrate what steps it has taken to offer further support to the resident.
Within the landlord’s communication, it is clear that it has informed the resident of alternative options such as a move. The representative has described how this would affect the resident’s wellbeing and does not consider this an option. It was however reasonable for the landlord to ensure that it made the resident aware of all options available to her.
While the landlord’s initial response was reasonable, it is of concern that the vulnerable resident remains in a position where she continues to report how noise affects her. It is noted that the landlord offered sound recording equipment, which the resident declined. This was a reasonable step and would provide the landlord with evidence throughout different times of day. It says this would help it consider what alternative actions it could reasonably take to reduce the reported noise.
Our investigation acknowledges that evidence is required to assist with any decision making, and the participation from residents is vital to achieve this. However, given that the representative supplied details of the difficulties the resident would have manually recording incidents herself, it is unclear what alternatives, if any, the landlord considered.
Furthermore, there is evidence that the landlord considered simply offering the equipment sufficient. An internal email on 3 October 2022 anticipated her refusal to allow it to supply the sound recording equipment and wrote “we can say we tried to investigate…” While the internal email is polite, it is dismissive and unhelpful. It does not demonstrate the landlord taking a proactive approach to support. Nor does it demonstrate that it considered her vulnerabilities and the difficulties she would experience using the equipment.
The landlord has demonstrated following its procedures and directing the resident to its policies and alternative external support. Under the building regulations the landlord is not responsible for the installation of soundproofing and she has been directed to apply for a DFG. It was therefore reasonable for it to inspect the property and give its consent for improvement works to be completed by the resident.
However, based on the findings of this investigation, we find service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for soundproofing to reduce noise at the property. It failed to demonstrate undertaking risk assessments to ensure it had considered that it was offering the appropriate support required. This included not considering alternatives solutions to the suggested sound recording equipment. It failed to consider the information supplied to it by the representative. Nor did it consider the explanation why the resident would have difficulties. This did not demonstrate the landlord giving due regard to the resident’s vulnerabilities and its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010.

Response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) in the block

The resident has reported the impact of various noise related ASB complaints for some years. These date from 2019. While we acknowledge the distress ASB can cause, we will not be able to determine historical complaints. This is because they were not brought to our attention within a reasonable time.
On 7 March 2022 the resident reported a noise and fire concern. She said that a neighbour and their visitors were sitting on the top floor of the block smoking, drug using, urinating, and disposing of rubbish from their property. The floor was no longer in use as the landlord had moved the engine room which it previously housed. She said the police had informed her that this was a landlord issue and suggested a non-combustible barrier to prevent access.
On the same day there is evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns and agreed to investigate. It recorded the police suggestion of installing a non-combustible barrier on the landing. There is evidence that the landlord discussed this option internally to prevent access to the redundant floor. This was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord acting on the resident’s concerns.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that any resident who wishes to report an incident of ASB will be assessed for their risk and vulnerability. This is to ensure the appropriate level of support can be provided and any safeguarding issues are identified.
While we found evidence of old action plans from December 2020 for historic complaints, there is no evidence that the landlord completed either an action plan or risk of harm assessment following the resident’s report of 7 March 2022. This was not appropriate and not in line with its policy.
Given that the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, it failed to follow its procedures to identify any additional support required by her while it commenced its investigation. Furthermore, it failed to demonstrate it had agreed the steps it would take to address her concerns and the frequency that it would update her.
It is noted that for this particular complaint, multiple teams were involved to progress the request for a non-combustible barrier. While it is clear from the evidence that the landlord’s teams were willing to progress this, its communication during the process to obtain quotes and secure budgets remained poor. We note that this was made more difficult as the resident declined call backs from particular staff. However, there is no evidence that the landlord sought to remedy this by proactively engaging with the representative to find a solution.
There is evidence that the resident chased the landlord for updates. There are records of 38 attempts where she tried to secure an update and/or provide reports about ASB concerns between 28 March 2022 to 17 July 2023. The need for the resident to chase frequently did not demonstrate that the landlord was proactively communicating with her or working to an agreed action plan to address her concerns. The delays to progress and lack of communication caused her distress.
While awaiting progress with the non-combustible barrier, the landlord recorded that the resident refused sound recording equipment to monitor the noise and behaviour of neighbours. It is also recorded she declined using diary sheets. Generally, offering these options as a means to record the actions of others is a reasonable step for a landlord to take. Evidence is essential. Without it a landlord is unable to commence enforcement action.
However, given that the representative had explained the difficulties the resident’s health vulnerabilities presented, it is unclear what, if any, alternative consideration was made. There is no evidence that the landlord sought input from the representative to ask for guidance on suitable alternatives that the resident could undertake. It should have considered alternative evidence gathering methods to diary sheets.
There is evidence that the landlord agreed to the installation of a barrier to prevent access to the redundant fifth floor. There is also reference to a letter being sent to the block to remind all residents of their tenancy obligations. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy. This states that it may consider it appropriate to take a tenancy management approach to remind residents of their responsibilities or take other preventative action. This demonstrated the landlord was acting on the resident’s concerns.
However, the installation of the barrier was agreed approximately 8 months after the resident’s initial ASB reports. While it is accepted that it takes time to obtain quotes and to secure authorisation/budgets, this was an unreasonable length of time. There is evidence that a lack of affective communication internally caused delays in progressing the work or providing the resident with a clear action plan. This did not demonstrate positive record keeping and caused the resident distress as she continued to chase for updates.
Furthermore, the landlord assured the resident it would install the barrier by the financial year end. This being March 2023. This deadline was missed and the landlord’s records show that it remains outstanding as of March 2024. It has therefore been 2 years since the resident’s initial reports that she was affected by ASB issues on the fifth floor.
It is noted that the resident declined call backs from particular staff members, declined recording equipment and diary sheets. This would have made progress with the complaint or enforcement action more challenging. However, had it completed a risk assessment as per its policy, it would have been in a better position to agree support needs and communication channels. Risk assessments are essential to identify the threat posed to a resident and any support needs they may have. The level of threat and support required can change. There is no evidence that this process was completed or monitored.
Based on the evidence, we find maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) in the block. Although the landlord provided detailed complaint responses and agreed to offer the non-combustible barrier solution, it took an unreasonable time to reach the decision. Once the decision was reached the landlord failed to do what it said it would do. Meanwhile the resident, who has known mental and physical disabilities, was caused distress and inconvenience by suffering the effects of ASB in an area which could have been closed off.
In addition the landlord failed to adhere to its policy and good practice to undertake a risk assessment and provide an action plan. The resident continued to report issues and chase for updates for 2 years. While its complaint responses sought to reassure her that the barrier would be fitted, it remains outstanding. Therefore the landlord has failed to provide the remedy it promised in order to put things right for the resident.
In view of this, compensation is warranted and the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £200. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which provides for awards of compensation between £100 and £600. This is where there has been a failure which has adversely affected the resident. Consideration has been made for the landlord’s initial response and actions taken to ensure residents are reminded of their tenancy obligations.

Handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct

The representative has made a complaint regarding the communication to the resident by 3 members of the landlord’s staff. These reports start from 2019.
While it is acknowledged that unsatisfactory service can cause distress and damage relationships, some matters raised relate to incidents in 2019 and 2021. These took place prior to the resident’s complaint being accepted by us. It is not possible for us to determine historic conversations between the resident and members of the landlord’s staff. However we can consider the actions it took to address the points raised and where appropriate, put things right. For the purpose of this report, we have considered events leading to the resident’s complaint in June 2022.
The landlord’s complaint responses advised of the steps it has previously taken to address the resident’s communication concerns. It says in 2021 it put in place a reasonable adjustment to provide the resident with written communication in large font. Furthermore, it provided the mobile number of a named officer who would respond within 48 hours of the resident’s message. These were reasonable steps to ensure the resident was able to communicate with the landlord in ways which supported her needs. Furthermore, it removed the need for her to communicate with a member of staff she no longer wished to engage with.
It was however reasonable for the landlord to explain within its complaint responses that although its officer would respond to voicemail messages within 48 hours, it was not always able to provide an immediate resolution. This was reasonable to manage the resident’s expectations. As a single point of contact, the officer would require assistance from other services, teams, or managers to assist with the resident’s enquiries.
In October 2022, the resident became aware that a neighbourhood management officer had sent a letter to all residents. This was to warn about trespassers in the block. The resident says she called weekly for a month to request a copy in large print so she could also read it. The landlord’s records confirm these calls. As no response was received, the resident felt ignored. This was not appropriate and did not demonstrate the landlord giving due regard for the needs of the resident. It had previously agreed to a reasonable adjustment and had failed to meet the resident’s needs on this occasion.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction that the point of contact had commented on the resident moving property. This was suggested to overcome the noise she was experiencing. However, the resident says the property is suitable for her needs but the noise is the problem. She was unhappy that this was considered an option.
While it is clear that this suggestion caused the resident distress, it was reasonable for the landlord to ensure that the resident was aware of all of her options. The landlord had informed her of its position regarding the installation of soundproofing and considered it its duty to ensure she was given alternative options. The landlord’s apology for any upset caused and explanation that there was “no malice” in its officer providing this information was a reasonable response.
Having considered the concerns raised by the resident and the landlord’s responses, we find service failure with its handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct. The landlord repeatedly failed to respond to and provide the resident with a copy of a block warning letter in the appropriately sized font. Therefore, she was left unable to read the information that had been sent. There is evidence that she chased for this to be sent to her for a month.

Complaint

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It states that a resident can expect a response within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. If more time is required this should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason and be agreed with the resident in advance.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 15 July 2022. This was not appropriate as it was 12 working days beyond the landlord’s 10 working day complaint response timeframe.
The stage 1 response failed to recognise or apologise for this failure. Furthermore there is no evidence that it had agreed an extended response timeframe with the resident’s representative. This was not appropriate and not in line with the procedures of its complaints policy. There is also evidence that the landlord failed to provide a copy of its response within the correct font size as agreed under a reasonable adjustment set up in 2021. This did not demonstrate the landlord giving due regard for the needs of its resident which caused her distress while the representative resolved matters. Furthermore, the failure to provide this information in line with an agreed reasonable adjustment demonstrates poor information management.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that all requests to escalate a complaint to stage 2 must be received within 10 working days of receiving the stage 1 response. While the resident’s escalation request exceeded this timeframe, it was reasonable for the landlord to accept the escalation request for further investigation. This demonstrated the landlord taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
However, some delay was caused due to errors within the landlord’s stage 1 response. It had failed to properly identify the correct deadline date for escalation. This was an inconvenience to the resident and caused distress as she believed that her right to escalate had passed. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to recognise this failure in its stage 2 response. Its apology and offer of compensation demonstrated learning from outcomes and an effort to put things right for the resident.
The resident’s escalation request was dated 23 August 2022. She should therefore have expected a stage 2 response by 21 September 2022. However the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request until 8 September 2022. This was not appropriate as the landlord’s complaint policy states that it will acknowledge these requests within 5 working days.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that, in order to ensure effective investigation, all complaints should be made within 6 months of when the event occurred or became known to the resident. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord’s response to explained that it had previously considered several historic complaints and was unable to revisit them. This was reasonable in the circumstances and in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on 4 November 2022. This was not appropriate as it was 32 working days beyond its complaint handling response timeframe. Had the landlord required more time, it should have agreed a maximum 10 working day extension in advance with the resident or her representative. This did not happen, leaving the representative to chase for updates on 13 and 18 October 2022.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology and compensation), put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s stage 2 response apologised for the errors of its stage 1 response and recognised these would cause inconvenience. It further apologised for its delayed stage 2 response and offered £100 compensation for its complaint handling and £100 for the residents time, trouble, and inconvenience pursuing the complaint. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise these failures and offer redress in an attempt to put things right.
Any remedy offered must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result. A landlord must carefully manage the expectations of residents and not promise anything that cannot be delivered or would cause unfairness to other residents.
The landlord apologised for its failure to provide written communication in the agreed font size and advised that learning would be shared with relevant teams. However, the representative said that it had happened on 7 occasions between 10 September 2022 to 25 November 2022. This was not appropriate and the frequency of this failure not fully recognised within the landlord’s complaint response. The resident described that the landlord’s failures to meet her needs left her feeling anxious and disrespected.
In this case, while it is recognised that the landlord acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, the offer made is not proportionate to the failings identified in its complaint handling. Therefore, compensation in the amount of £400, rather than the £200 offered, is appropriate.
The landlord is ordered to pay additional compensation of £200. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to recognise instances of reoccurring service failures that amount to maladministration and adversely affect the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise and her request for soundproofing at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) in the block.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident £750 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £200 offered at stage 2 to recognise its complaint handling failures, if not already paid.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for soundproofing to reduce noise at the property.
  3. £200 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) in the block.
  4. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
  5. A further £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord is ordered within 6 weeks to arrange to meet the resident to discuss the findings of this report. This should be arranged alongside the resident’s representative. Consideration should include:
1. An assessment of the impact of noise on the resident and details of the actions it has taken to date to minimise these.
2. Confirmation that the property meets relevant regulations for noise transference.
3. Whether there are any reasonably practicable steps it can take, following its assessment, to further help minimise the reported noise.
4. Its position regarding its consent for the resident to undertake the soundproofing works.
5. Information regarding applications to the disabled facilities grant team and/or alternative support organisations for the representative to approach on the resident’s behalf.
6. What alternative suitable noise monitoring options it can provide and how it will use the information once obtained.
The landlord is ordered to review its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers respond and deal with complaints in accordance with its complaints procedure. The landlord may benefit from the free resources available via the Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning. This is available on our website.
The landlord is ordered to provide refresher training to ensure all ASB officers are aware of the need to complete risk assessments in line with its policy and procedures. This training should include the importance of maintaining regular communication with residents with open ASB cases to provide updates, and to assess any changes to their support needs.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders.

Recommendation

The landlord is encouraged to consider specific neurodiversity awareness training to support its officers skills when working with individuals with health and support needs.
The landlord is encouraged to consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023) and self-assess against the recommendations in that report.