Plus Dane Housing Limited (202108997)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108997

Plus Dane Housing Group Limited

16 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Reports about the cleaning of communal areas.
3. Reports about a roof leak.
4. Requests for a conifer to be cut back.
5. Requests for compensation payments.
6. Complaints.
It is also about the landlord’s decision to apply contact restrictions.

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of the property, a two bedroom flat in a block, from July 2010. The landlord is a housing association which owns and manages the block, and it has recorded that the resident has a mental health condition.
The resident told the Ombudsman that she has obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), severe anxiety and depression. She told us that she considers herself to be disabled.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement and duties under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord is also responsible for repairs in communal areas and for keeping communal areas fit for use.
The tenancy agreement says that the resident must pay the rent and service charge and that the landlord will provide the services that it charges for. The services being charged for include the cleaning of communal areas and maintaining communal gardens.
The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as behaviour capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person. It says the landlord will:
1. Assess reports based on the type of behaviour, the impact it is having and the vulnerability of those affected. It will complete a risk assessment with the person reporting the ASB and use it to plan its interventions and provide support.
2. Act quickly and decisively and consider using the range of tools available with the aim of stopping the harm being caused.
3. Work in partnership with other agencies where appropriate.
The policy says the landlord recognises that residents may report behaviour which they consider is anti social but does not meet the landlord’s definition of ASB. It lists examples of behaviour it would not consider to be ASB including neighbour disputes and says it may offer mediation to prevent disputes from escalating.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process and its complaints and feedback policy says it will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. Its website says the landlord does not consider initial reports of neighbour disputes or requests for a service as complaints. It says that the landlord reserves the right not to deal with complaints that it has already considered or are pursued in an “unacceptable manner”. Its policy says it will give residents an explanation if decides not to accept a complaint under its policy.
It has a separate compensation framework which sets out the circumstances under which the landlord may pay compensation. It says the landlord will consider compensation where service failures have caused inconvenience or distress.
The landlord has an unreasonable, vexatious or persistent complaints framework that it uses with its complaints policy. It says that the landlord may apply contact restrictions where a resident pursues complaints in way which hinders the landlord’s consideration of their complaint or its ability to deliver services. The framework gives examples of behaviour which the landlord may consider unreasonable including:
1. Pursuing a complaint when the complaints procedure has been fully and properly implemented and exhausted.
2. Making an excessive number of contacts placing unreasonable demands on staff.
On 23 March 2020, the UK government announced a national lockdown due to COVID-19. This was eased from June 2020 when schools and non-essential retail outlets re-opened. The government introduced new restrictions from 22 September 2020 and a second full national lockdown came into effect from 5 November 2020. Restrictions were lifted slightly over Christmas, but there was a third national lockdown from 6 January 2021. Although schools re-opened on 8 March 2021, the “stay at home” order remained in place until 29 March 2021. On 19 July 2021 most legal limits on social contact were removed in England and the final closed sectors of the economy reopened.

Scope of investigation

The evidence shows that the resident has made multiple complaints to the landlord about various issues over many years. In 2019 the Ombudsman investigated a complaint brought by the resident about the landlord’s handling of improvement work, reports of nuisance, communal repairs and the resident’s complaint. We will only refer to these other complaints and historical events in this report if it is necessary for context.
Also, in 2019 the landlord dealt with a complaint from the resident about her neighbour closing communal windows after she had opened them and about his dog. The landlord provided its stage 2 response to that complaint on 14 October 2019 and did not uphold the complaint. The matters complained about and the landlord’s handling of the complaint are not part of this investigation and any references are for context only.
The scope of this investigation is matters that the resident brought to us on 3 August 2020, 15 March 2021 and 28 July 2021 which the landlord has had the opportunity to address through its complaints process. Specifically, these were:
1. Dissatisfaction with the cleaning of communal areas.
2. The landlord’s handling of reports she had made about a neighbour.
3. A leaking roof.
4. The landlord not cutting back a conifer that she had reported.
5. The landlord failing to replace batteries in a CCTV camera.
6. Not receiving compensation that was agreed after the landlord had passed information to the police.
7. The landlord issuing her with a warning about her behaviour and ignoring her reports and complaints.
8. The landlord refusing to accept a formal complaintin July 2021.
During the events in this case the resident made a claim against the landlord for injuries sustained when she slipped in the communal area. The resident had not raised any dissatisfaction with the handling of her claim through the landlord’s complaint process. As such we have not included any references to the insurance claim in this investigation.
The resident believes that the landlord’s handling of her reports and complaints amounts to discrimination. The Ombudsman is not able to reach legal findings but has considered whether the landlord’s approach was fair and reasonable. The resident may wish to take legal advice if she wants to pursue her complaints about discrimination further.

Summary of events

Between 6 March 2020 and 13 March 2020 the resident contacted the landlord multiple times reporting a range of issues about the cleaning of her block, repairs in the communal areas and rubbish not being removed from the grassed areas. The landlord emailed her on 18 March 2020 giving responses to the queries she had raised. It also said that it had noticed an increase in the volume of emails that the resident was sending to different staff members and asked her to send non urgent queries to a single point of contact in future. The landlord explained this was to minimise the impact of her emails on its resources and to make sure it responded to her queries appropriately. It said that it may consider applying its unreasonable, vexatious and persistent behaviour framework if her volume of contacts continued.
On 23 March 2020 the resident reported that a neighbour was closing communal windows after she had opened them and leaving the security door open. She also said the communal cleaning was not satisfactory as no areas were being sanitised and later sent the landlord an email with the Government’s guidance on minimising the spread of COVID-19.
The landlord replied the following day saying it had spoken to the neighbour and asked him not to close the windows. It also said that it was suspending nonessential services due to the national lockdown and this may affect the cleaning schedules for the resident’s block. It later confirmed the cleaning service would continue.
Between 25 March 2020 and 11 April 2020, the resident sent multiple emails saying that the neighbour was continuing to close the communal windows and was not following the Government’s COVID-19 guidelines. She also raised issues with the cleaning of the communal areas. On 12 April 2020 she asked whether the battery had run out in the CCTV camera outside her flat and asked the landlord to check for footage of the neighbour closing windows.
The landlord replied to her emails on 14 April 2020 saying it could not prevent any of the residents from opening or closing the communal windows. It said it had spoken to other residents who had said they all opened or closed the windows depending on the weather. It would not open an ASB case or communicate further on the matter of the windows but it would check the batteries in the CCTV camera.
On 15 June 2020 the resident emailed the landlord saying she had been complaining about the cleaning of communal areas every week for several months but nothing had been resolved. She asked for a refund of the service charge for cleaning. The landlord contacted its cleaning contractor.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 3 August 2020 saying she had been complaining about the cleaning for months. She said that a neighbour had bullied her for years with the landlord’s knowledge, and the roof had been leaking for 8 years. The resident said that the landlord ignored all her complaints.
On 12 September 2020 the resident reported that the neighbour had called her a “wierdo” and had followed her. She sent videos of the incident which the landlord reviewed. It carried out a risk assessmentand decided to seek legal advice about the action it could take.
The following day the resident reported issues with the cleaning of the communal areas and the landlord contacted its cleaning contractor. The resident sent a further email with photographs attached on 5 October 2020.
On 6 October 2020 the landlord emailed the resident saying it had replied to the concerns she had raised about the cleaning of communal areas previously. It confirmed it was satisfied that cleaning was being done to the required specification and said it was seeking legal advice on the situation with the neighbour. It offered to meet with or call the resident to discuss her concerns in person. It sent a further email saying it had spoken to the neighbour following her report of 12 September 2020 and had instructed its solicitor to write to him.
On 7 October 2020 the landlord emailed the resident saying it had received reports about her opening the communal windows which was causing issues for residents in the flats above. The resident replied asking why the landlord was dealing with reports from other neighbours when it had refused to deal with her reports about her neighbour closing the windows. She explained that she opened the windows to ventilate the communal areas. The resident also raised concerns about other residents leaving the security door open and the foyer flooding when it rained and asked the landlord to deal with the litter outside the block and the cleaning.
The landlord emailed to apologise on 12 November 2020 and said it had been obliged to investigate the reports it had received from other residents. It explained that the reason it was not accepting her complaints about the neighbour closing the windows was because the matter had already been dealt with through its complaint process. It said that it was considering installing wall thermometers to help residents control the temperature in the communal areas. It also said it had supervised the cleaning of the communal areas the previous week and the resident had confirmed she had been satisfied with the standard.
On 19 November 2020 the resident asked for a copy of the solicitor’s letter that had been sent to her neighbour. On 25 November 2020 she emailed saying the landlord had not responded to her request for compensation for data protection breaches.
On 24 November 2020 the landlord responded to a subject access request (SAR) the resident had made. The SAR was about an email that the resident had sent to the landlord about possible drug use in the block which the landlord had sent on to the police. The landlord’s SAR response said it did not consider that passing the email on had been a breach of data protection rules and referred the resident to its complaints process and information commissioner’s office should she be dissatisfied with its conclusion.
On 29 November 2020 the resident complained that her reports about the cleaning were being ignored. She said she had sent photographs of items that needed cleaning and rubbish that needed removing but nothing was ever done.
On 30 November 2020 the landlord asked the resident if she was happy to be named in its letter to the neighbour which, it said, listed the reports she had made about his behaviour. The resident gave consent for her name to be given.
On 2 December 2020 the resident asked for a copy of the letter that had been sent to her neighbour and if the landlord had checked the CCTV footage. The landlord replied saying it could not send her a copy of the letter and that the CCTV camera no longer worked as the batteries had run out. The resident replied saying this was not acceptable as it meant there was no evidence of the incidents she had reported.
The landlord emailed the resident on 10 December 2020 saying it was considering applying its unreasonable behaviour framework due to the frequency and nature of the resident’s contacts and complaints. It listed the issues that she had reported and the actions it would take. The issues relevant to this case were:
1. The resident’s request for her complaint about the landlord sharing an email with police to be escalated. The landlord said it would respond through its complaint process.
2. Its refusal to provide a copy of the letter it had sent to her neighbour. The landlord said it would deal with the matter through its complaint process.
3. CCTV camera and door entry system. The landlord said it would deal with the matters through its complaint process.
4. Opening and closing of communal windows. The landlord said it had dealt with her complaint previously and would not communicate further on the matter.
5. Complaints about the cleaning of communal areas. The landlord said it had responded to her reports previously and would not communicate further on the matter. It said the cleaning was being done to its specification and her request for it to end the cleaning contract was disproportionate and unrealistic.
The landlord said it would respond to requests for repairs, reports of ASB, enquiries about her tenancy, and complaints about its services.
On 12 December 2020 the resident reported that her neighbour had shouted at her in the communal hallway and attached a video of the incident.
On 6 January 2021 the landlord sent a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint that it had passed an email she had sent onto the police. The landlord concluded it had been proportionate for it to have sent her email onto the police as it related to criminal allegations that she said she had also reported to the police. However, the landlord offered £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
Between 2 January 2021 and 21 January 2021, the resident made several reports to the landlord about the cleaning of communal areas, the behaviour of the neighbour and that the foyer roof was leaking when it rained. The landlord responded on 21 January 2021 saying it had visited but not found the cause of the leak and would visit again during rain.
On 25 January 2021 the resident emailed the landlord saying it had not responded to her complaint about the CCTV camera and its refusal to provide a copy of the letter it had sent to her neighbour. She said it had not responded to the report she had made about the neighbour on 12 December 2020 or reports she had made about the cleaning. And it had not responded to her request for compensation for it passing her email onto the police.
On 27 January 2021 the landlord and its roofing contractor visited the block and agreed work to resolve the roof leak. The work was completed on 1 February 2021.
On 1 February 2021 the resident emailed the landlord saying it had previously agreed to cut back a hedge but had not yet done so. She said the hedge obstructed a path and that her neighbour used it to hide in.
The resident emailed on 17 February 2021 telling the landlord she wanted to complain about it not responding to the ASB reports she had made. She said she did not want to pay for cleaning as the service did not benefit her. The landlord replied on 23 February 2021 saying it was compiling a timeline of her recent contacts and would log a complaint for any issues it had not yet addressed.
The resident emailed again on 25 February 2021 asking why the landlord had not responded to her emails and making complaints about other matters that are not part of this case. The landlord responded the same day giving updates on the matters she had raised. Between 26 February 2021 and 10 March 2021 the landlord and resident continued to exchange emails on various matters. Relevant to this case, the resident reminded the landlord about her request for the hedge to be cut on 28 February 2021 and the landlord passed her request on to its grounds maintenance team.
On 12 March 2021 the landlord emailed the resident saying it needed to extend its complaint response timescale due to the additional issues the resident had raised. It said it would give a response by 19 March 2021.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 15 March 2021 saying the landlord had not responded to her complaints about the CCTV camera batteries, her neighbour’s behaviour and cleaning. She also chased the landlord and it sent her a copy of the email it had previously sent to her on 12 March 2021.
On 17 March 2021 the resident emailed to say some hedges had been cut back but not the conifer that obstructed the path. She also said that the landlord should be making clear what residents were paying a cleaning charge for. The landlord acknowledged her contact and said it was working through her recent correspondence to prepare responses. It also suggested that it could remove the conifer that was obstructing the path and asked the resident to confirm if she wanted it to consult with other residents about doing so.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 20 March 2021 in which it:
1. Apologised for not meeting her expectations and for not responding to her complaint sooner.
2. Said it could not provide her with a copy of the letter it had sent to her neighbour as it had not been addressed to her. It had explained this to her on 2 December 2020.
3. Said that the camera on her landing was not CCTV but a motion activated camera which had been intended to collect evidence and give reassurance for a fixed period. It was not meant to be a long term solution and no evidence had been found on the footage whilst the camera had been working. She had asked for the camera to remain in place from April 2020 to capture footage of other residents closing communal windows. This had not been appropriate as the closing of windows was not ASB. It had explained previously that the camera batteries had run out so the camera was not working. It did not intend to replace the batteries.
4. Explained what it had seen on the video she had sent on 12 December 2020 and concluded it did not show ASB by the neighbour. It had considered her other reports about her neighbour and did not consider them to be ASB.
5. Said it had dealt with a complaint about it passing information to the police previously. Its data protection officer had investigated and it had replied to her subject access request for further information. She had also reported the matter to the information commissioner’s office. The landlord was satisfied it had acted appropriately and said it had not offered to give compensation.
6. Said it had dealt with a separate complaint about it passing information to the police in January 2021 where it had agreed to pay £50 compensation. It was sorry that it had not yet paid the compensation and would now do so.
7. It was satisfied that communal areas were being cleaned according to its specification. It inspected the standard of cleaning regularly and logged its inspections on the block notice board for residents’ information. She had reported concerns about the cleaning to the health and safety executive (HSE) in 2020 and it had been satisfied that the landlord had appropriate cleaning procedures in place. It would not end the current cleaning contract as to do so would not be proportionate.
8. The cost of cleaning communal areas was shared equally between residents and set out in the service charge schedule. Her tenancy agreement obliged her to pay the service charge for communal cleaning.
9. It had trimmed the conifer that she had reported and emailed her asking if she wanted it to consult with residents with a view to removing it completely.
10. The frequency of her contacts and number of different issues she raised had made it difficult for responses to be given within its usual timescales. It had apologised when there had been delays and had explained its approach in trying to make sure it responded to everything she had raised.
11. It acknowledged that she had needed to report some things several times and offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience this had caused.
12. It had explained previously how the volume of her requests and enquiries were affecting its ability to deal with them and other matters. It would now manage her contacts through its unreasonable behaviour framework and would write to her separately about this.
The landlord sent a further copy of its stage 1 response by email on 22 March 2021.
On 1 April 2021 the landlord emailed the resident confirming it was applying its unreasonable behaviour framework. It explained that the volume of emails she sent and wide range of issues she raised, including continuing to raise issues that it had previously responded to, was unmanageable. It said her persistent emails hindered its ability to deal with enquiries and complaints from her and other residents. It had asked her to reduce her contacts but she had not done so and now it would minimise contact. She could report emergency repairs by telephone but should otherwise use a specific email address and limit her enquiries to issues that directly affected the health and safety of her or her neighbours. It attached its policy, explained the appeal process and said it would review the position in 6 months.
The resident emailed on 2 April 2021 saying she had not had a response to her complaint before the copy sent on 22 March 2021 and she had not received other emails that the landlord said it had sent. She thought the landlord may be sending emails to the wrong address or was sending them on Fridays which meant her email account settings would automatically delete them. The resident disagreed with the landlord’s stage 1 response and asked for her complaint to be escalated. She said:
1. The letter sent to the neighbour had included her name so she felt entitled to see what it had said.
2. The landlord had failed to check the batteries in the motion camera and had not previously told her it intended to remove it. The landlord’s statement that she wanted the camera to remain to capture residents opening and closing the communal windows was not correct.
3. She felt the landlord was blaming her for the incident that she had sent a video of and disputed the landlord’s conclusion that her neighbour’s behaviour was not ASB.
4. She disagreed that the landlord had dealt with her complaint about it passing information to the police in 2019. She said someone was supposed to contact her but did not do so.
5. She did not want the cleaning contract to be ended but wanted the cleaning to be done properly. Other residents were also dissatisfied with the standard of cleaning and the information on the notice board about cleaning visits was not accurate.
6. The landlord had not given details of what the service charges for cleaning covered.
7. She had no preference about whether the conifer be removed or just cut back. She felt it was the landlord’s decision to make and said it had not consulted with residents on other occasions.
8. She thanked the landlord for its apology and compensation offer.
9. The landlord had not responded to a complaint she had made on 29 November 2020. The officer had sent her an email on 1 April 2021 but she had not read it as her name had been spelt incorrectly.
10. The landlord’s warnings about her behaviour were unfair. Other residents made frequent contacts and had not been given warnings. She would not have to keep contacting the landlord if it responded to issues when she reported them.
The landlord confirmed it had escalated her complaint on 13 April 2021 and sent another copy of its email of 1 April 2021 confirming the application of its unreasonable behaviour framework.
On 7 May 2021 the resident emailed objecting to the landlord’s application of its unreasonable behaviour framework. She said the landlord had refused to deal with the cleaning issues and had ignored her evidence about her neighbour’s behaviour. She said that she would not have to keep contacting it if it responded to her reports properly.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 11 May 2021 which said:
1. It had sent emails to her at the address she had given and had sent further copies of emails that she said she had not received.
2. It could not send her a copy of the letter it had sent to her neighbour.
3. The motion camera had been provided as a temporary measure and would be removed on 31 May 2021. Her email of 7 December 2020 had said that the camera could provide evidence of other residents closing the communal windows.
4. It had no further comments to add to its to add to its stage 1 response regarding the video she had sent on 12 December 2020 or her complaint about it passing information to the police.
5. It had sent her a copy of the cleaning contract specification on 22 August 2020. Details of the service charge for cleaning was included in the rent increase notification sent to her on 19 February 2021. It had sent a further copy of the rent increase notification on 17 March 2021 after she had said she had not received the original. It had no further comments to add.
6. It had no further comments to add to its stage 1 response about her reports that the standard of cleaning was inadequate.
7. It had cut the conifer back and had paid the compensation awarded in its stage 1 response.
8. It was sorry it had misspelled her name in its email of 1 April 2021 and had sent a corrected copy on 13 April 2021. Her objection to it applying its unreasonable behaviour framework on 7 May 2021 had been sent after the 14 day appeal period had ended. However, it had considered the points she had raised in her objection and concluded they were issues it had already considered when making its decision to apply the framework. It felt its decision to apply contact restrictions was reasonable and they would continue to apply. It repeated its previous advice on how the resident should limit and direct future contact, and how it would deal with her contacts.
9. It confirmed that her complaint had completed its process and gave advice should she remain dissatisfied.
The resident responded on 16 June 2021 saying that she had not been able to open the attachments to the email the landlord had sent on 11 May 2021. She emailed again on 29 June 2021 saying she had not had a response and raising new issues. The landlord sent copies of its stage 2 response and attachments by post on 30 June 2021 and replied to the new issues she had raised on 8 July 2021.
On 8 July 2021 and 9 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord about various issues. Relevant to this case, she asked why the motion camera had been removed without her being notified, reported that cleaning had not been done on the scheduled day and that the neighbour had been throwing food out of his window.
The landlord responded on 12 July 2021 saying that the cleaning would be done that day and no refund of the service charge was due. It reminded the resident that it would only respond to her contacts about health and safety issues and said that the other issues she had raised were not related to health and safety.
The resident replied the same day saying she wanted to make a formal complaint about the landlord not responding to the issues she had raised. The landlord told her it would not accept her complaint.
On 13 July 2021 the resident contacted the Ombudsman saying she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports and felt it was discriminating against her in refusing to deal with her complaints. She clarified the reasons for her dissatisfaction in a further email on 28 July 2021.
From 15 July 2021 the resident continued to email the landlord about a wide range of issues including those included in this investigation. The landlord reviewed its application of its unreasonable behaviour framework on 1 October 2021 and decided to continue applying contact restrictions for a further 6 months.
On15 December 2023 the landlord told us it had not applied contact restrictions since October 2023 as restrictions had not reduced the frequency of the resident’s contacts. Since then, it has provided a single point of contact to manage the resident’s contacts.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case.
The evidence we have seen suggests that the landlord’s handling of all the issues in this case was affected by difficulties in it communicating effectively with the resident.
During our investigation we looked at over 1,000 pages of emails exchanged between the resident and the landlord between 6 March 2020 and 19 July 2021. The emails suggest that the landlord was, at times, overwhelmed by the frequency of the resident’s contacts and range of issues being reported. For example, between 6 March 2020 and 13 March 2020 the resident had reported 15 different issues.
The landlord had told the resident several times that it was struggling to respond to her requests and complaints within its usual timescales. The evidence suggests the landlord was, at times, trying to coordinate its responses. For example, when it wrote to the resident on 10 December 2020 setting out the issues that she had reported and its position on each.
At other times, the landlord was focusing its contacts on addressing a single issue which it deemed to be the most urgent. For example, between 2 January 2021 and 9 March 2021 when the landlord was trying to arrange access to inspect smoke alarms and agreed to postpone whilst the resident was shielding from COVID-19.
The resident’s stated preference was for communication to be by email. The evidence suggests that the resident was trying to manage the emails she received, including those from the landlord. For example, her email account was set to automatically delete emails received on a Friday and her emails included a footnote saying responses may not be read for several weeks.
Although the resident is entitled to manage her emails as she wishes, we acknowledge that the landlord’s attempts to respond to her emails within its usual timescales were affected by it trying to accommodate her preferences. For example, the landlord sometimes sent her an email on a Friday and sent another copy of it the following Monday. This approach may have enabled the landlord to meet its response timescales, but it also increased the volume of emails being exchanged and created extra work for the landlord.
Communication between the landlord and resident was further complicated when the resident changed her email address. The evidence shows that the resident sent emails from 2 email addresses during December 2020 and January 2021 and the landlord sent its responses to the address she had sent her emails from. The resident clarified which address the landlord should use on 25 January 2021 and acknowledged that she might not have picked up emails it had sent to the other address.
We also acknowledge that there were sometimes delays in the resident reading the landlord’s responses. For example, on 9 March 2021, when the resident responded to the landlord’s email of 25 February 2021, she said that she was only checking her emails “now and again”. The evidence shows that sometimes the resident was chasing the landlord for responses that it had already sent but she either had not received or had not yet read.
When the resident told the landlord she had not received emails it had sent, the landlord sent further copies to her. It also sometimes sent copies by post which shows the landlord took reasonable steps to make sure the resident received its correspondence.

Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

We understand that the resident has made multiple reports to the landlord about a neighbour’s behaviour over many years. In 2018 the landlord had taken enforcement action and installed a motion activated camera to capture evidence of any further antisocial behaviour. In July 2019 the landlord had told the resident in an email that the footage had not shown any behaviour that would be considered a tenancy breach. The landlord had also offered mediation in July 2019 which the resident had declined.
This case concerns the reports of ASB that the resident made between 23 March 2020 and 19 July 2021.
The resident’s initial reports in March 2020 were about the neighbour closing communal windows after she had opened them and it was reasonable that the landlord spoke to the neighbour. Although closing the windows would not be classed as ASB, the landlord’s response showed it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously. Similarly, it was reasonable that the landlord spoke to other residents when the resident made further reports before confirming to the resident that it could not take any further action.
The next ASB related issue was when the resident asked the landlord to check camera footage in April 2020. Internal emails we have seen suggest that the landlord may have removed the motion camera if not for the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, on 14 April 2020 it told the resident it would check the camera batteries after she had asked it to check for footage of the neighbour closing the communal windows. We have seen no evidence that it did so and this was the first of several missed opportunities to consider replacing the batteries which may have given reassurance to the resident.
The landlord followed its policy in assessing the risks when the resident reported the neighbour had called her a name on 12 September 2020. It was reasonable that the landlord decided to take action after reviewing the resident’s video of the incident. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have consulted the resident about the actions available to it and considered her views in deciding which to take. However, we do not consider this to be a service failure given the difficulties that the landlord had in communicating with the resident by email only.
Although the resident had provided her own video of the incident, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered whether to replace the batteries in the motion camera to capture evidence of potential future incidents.
The landlord had decided to write to the neighbour by 6 October 2020 but had not yet done so by 30 November 2020. It is not clear from the evidence seen when the letter was sent to the neighbour or why there was such a delay. The landlord should have written to the neighbour sooner.
Further, it was inappropriate that the landlord asked the resident’s consent to name her in its letter to the neighbour. It doing so led to the resident’s later complaint about not being given a copy of the letter in which she had been named and could have put the resident at risk of reprisal. The landlord’s letter to the neighbour should have just set out the reports it had received.
The resident reported a further incident on 12 December 2020 and we have seen no evidence that the landlord carried out a risk assessment or responded at the time. This was a failing and contrary to the landlord’s ASB policy.
The resident’s emails of 12 January 2021 and 25 January 2021 should have prompted the landlord to realise that it had not responded. However, it did not address her report until its stage 1 complaint response on 17 March 2021. The response did clearly set out what the landlord had seen on the video she had sent and confirmed that the landlord did not consider it to be ASB. The landlord’s decision on the incident was reasonable but its delay in responding was a service failure.
The landlord was entitled to decide to remove the motion camera that it had provided as a temporary measure. However, given that the resident was continuing to make reports about her neighbour’s behaviour, the landlord should have considered whether retaining the camera would be beneficial. Replacing the batteries may have given reassurance to resident and provided the landlord with additional confirmation that there were no tenancy breaches that it should respond to.
It was reasonable that the landlord gave the resident notice of its intention to remove the camera in its stage 2 response of 11 May 2021. However, the evidence suggests that the resident had not been able to read the letter before the camera was removed. This was because she had not been able to read the email version of the stage 2 response and had not yet received the copy that was later posted to her. This was unfortunate but does not amount to service failure as the landlord had taken reasonable steps to give advance notice of the camera’s removal.
The landlord took appropriate action in responding to the resident’s reports about the neighbour closing the communal windows and calling her a derogatory name. However, the failings identified above amount to maladministration in its overall handling of the resident’s reports.

Reports about the cleaning of communal areas.

We understand that the resident has been dissatisfied with the cleaning of communal areas for many years and has made various complaints to the landlord prior to this case.
In this case, the resident had started reporting concerns about the cleaning 2 weeks before the government announced the first national lockdown due to COVID-19. The Ombudsman understands that this was an uncertain time for landlords as they anticipated what restrictions may be imposed and then had to decide which services could continue after legal restrictions were announced. It was reasonable that the landlord told the resident that the cleaning service could be affected by the national lockdown and later confirmed the service would continue.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident’s concerns about the cleaning may have been increased by safety fears during the pandemic. The landlord’s records show it passed her concerns onto the contractor and checked the products it was using to sanitise surfaces. We have not seen evidence that it responded to all the resident’s reports about the cleaning between 15 June 2020 and 6 October 2020. However, it did give her a copy of the cleaning specification in August 2020 which suggests it was responding to her concerns. It also confirmed on 6 October 2020 that it was satisfied that cleaning was being done to its specification.
We note that the resident had reported her concerns about the standard of cleaning to the HSE in 2020 and that it had made enquiries with the landlord about the arrangements in place at the time. The HSE had concluded that the landlord’s cleaning arrangements were appropriate.
The evidence we have seen shows that the landlord had measures in place to check the standard of cleaning. It carried out inspections and supervised some of the cleaning visits. For example, the landlord supervised cleaning on 12 November 2020 and had checked with the resident that she was satisfied with the standard.
From 10 December 2020 the landlord had told the resident that it would not communicate further about the standard of cleaning. However, it did repeat that it regularly checked the standard and was satisfied cleaning was being done to its specification in its complaint response of 20 March 2021. This shows that the landlord was continuing to consider the resident’s ongoing dissatisfaction with the standard of cleaning.
The landlord took reasonable steps to answer the resident’s queries about the cleaning specification and charges. It gave her a copy of the specification and explained how the charge was calculated. It also gave reasonable explanations when the resident reported that cleaners had not attended on the usual day. For example, it explained that cleaning had been done a day earlier than usual in December 2020 to avoid Christmas Day. Another example was when the landlord told the resident the cleaners were attending on 12 July 2021 which was the next working day after their usual attendance.
As such there is no evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the cleaning of communal areas.

Reports about a roof leak.

We have seen evidence that the landlord replaced the roof of the resident’s block before the events in this case and that there were sporadic issues with leaks following this. When the resident reported rainwater coming into the foyer in January 2021, the landlord was already aware of defects with the roof and was trying to diagnose the cause with its contractor.
The evidence shows the landlord and its contractor diagnosed the cause of the leak on 27 January 2021 and the repair was done by 1 February 2021. We have seen no evidence of further issues following the repair.
As such there is no evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a roof leak.

Requests for a conifer to be cut back.

The resident reported that a “hedge” needed cutting back on 1 February 2021 but we have not seen evidence that the landlord passed this onto its grounds maintenance team until her second report on 28 February 2021. This delay was a service failure given the resident had said the hedge was obstructing the path.
The resident’s subsequent email of 17 March 2021 saying that a hedge had been cut but not the conifer that obstructed the path suggests that she may have meant to report the conifer on 1 February 2021.
The evidence shows that the landlord reacted quickly when it realised the resident had been referring to the conifer on 17 March 2021 and had cut it back by 20 March 2021.
As such there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the conifer to be cut back.

Compensation payments

It is not disputed that the landlord passed information on to the police on two occasions, both of which were investigated by the landlord’s data protection officer at the time they occurred. The matter in dispute is whether the landlord offered to pay compensation.
Regarding the first occasion which occurred in 2019, we have seen evidence that the landlord investigated the data breach but seen no evidence that it offered compensation.
The second occasion occurred in 2020 and, again, we have seen evidence that the landlord investigated the data breach. Although the landlord’s investigation concluded it had been appropriate for it to have shared the information, it did offer £50 compensation in its complaint response of 6 January 2021.
The landlord acknowledged that it had not paid the compensation it had agreed in its later complaint response on 20 March 2021. It also increased its compensation offer to £100 in recognition of its delay in making payment.
It is not clear from the evidence seen why the payment had been overlooked but the delay in payment was a service failure. However, the Ombudsman considers that the increase in the compensation amount was reasonable redress under the circumstances.

Complaints

It is not clear from the evidence we have seen when the resident first complained about the landlord passing an email onto the police. The landlord’s response to her SAR on 24 November 2020 had referred her to its complaint process if she remained dissatisfied so it is likely that she complained sometime after that date.
When the landlord wrote to the resident on 10 December 2020 it had said it would deal with the following issues through its complaint process:
1. The resident’s complaint about it passing an email she had sent it to the police.
2. Its refusal to provide her with a copy of the letter it had sent to her neighbour.
3. Her concerns about the CCTV camera.
As such we would have expected to have seen evidence that the landlord had logged the issues as formal complaints and given a stage 1 response by 20 December 2020.
However, the landlord did not give a formal complaint response about it passing on the email to the police until 6 January 2021. This was at least 16 working days after the resident had complained. The delay was a service failure and contrary to the landlord’s timescales within its complaints policy.
The resident’s email of 25 January 2021 should have prompted the landlord to realise it had not responded to the other two issues through its complaint process.
The evidence suggests that the landlord was having difficulty in tracking which of the resident’s complaints it had dealt with and which it had not. For example, on 23 February 2021 it had said it was compiling a list of the resident’s contacts and would log complaints for issues it had not yet addressed.
This meant that the landlord’s stage 1 response of 20 March 2021 was given 3 months after it had accepted the resident’s complaints about its refusal to give her a copy of the letter it had sent to her neighbour and about the CCTV camera. However, the landlord’s response did address those issues as well as the other issues that the resident had raised in her 4 further complaint emails (25 January 2021, 17 February 2021, 28 February 2021 and 9 March 2021). In total the landlord addressed 26 issues that the resident had complained about in its response.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 2 April 2021 and the landlord confirmed it had done so 7 working days later. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 11 May 2021 addressed all the issues raised although the landlord gave no further comment from its stage 1 response on several of them. Although the stage 2 response was sent 25 working days after the resident had requested escalation, the delay was reasonable to allow the landlord to consider her objections to its contact restrictions which it had received on 7 May 2021.
It was reasonable that the landlord sent a further copy of its stage 2 response by post when the resident said she had not been able to open the attachments. However, the landlord did not do this until 11 working days after the resident had said she had not been able to read the response. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have posted a copy sooner.
The resident made a further formal complaint on 12 July 2021 about the landlord not responding to various reports she had made. The landlord was entitled to refuse to accept the complaint given that its failure to respond to her emails were in accordance with the contact restrictions in place at the time.
Although there were delays in the landlord responding to the resident’s complaints, we have considered the mitigating factors of the volume of the resident’s emails and the number of issues she had raised as complaints. As such we have determined that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Decision to apply contact restrictions

The Ombudsman understands that handling persistent and multiple service requests and complaints from a resident can be a challenge for landlords. However, we would expect landlords to apply contact restrictions only as a last resort when other options have been tried.
We have seen evidence that shows the landlord had emailed the resident expressing concern about the frequency of her emails prior to this case. The correspondence seen shows that the landlord was mindful of the resident’s vulnerabilities and wanted to engage with and support her.
The landlord had told the resident multiple times that it was having difficulty in managing her contacts and they were impacting its ability to respond to queries and complaints from other residents. It had asked the resident to reduce her contacts several times and tried to manage them through a single point of contact before applying its unreasonable behaviour framework. It had also offered to meet with the resident or discuss her concerns by telephone.
The Ombudsman’s opinion is that the landlord’s decision to apply contact restrictions was reasonable under the circumstances. Its letter of 1 April 2021 clearly explained the reasons for its decision, how the contact restrictions would apply and how the resident could appeal.
When the resident told the landlord she had not read the letter, it sent a further copy on 13 April 2021. It also allowed additional time for the resident to appeal and considered her objections to the contact restrictions even though the appeal timescale had passed.
Despite the landlord applying contact restrictions it has continued to respond to the resident’s emails. For example, when the resident reported that cleaning had not been done on 9 July 2021 the landlord replied on 12 July 2021 saying it would be done that day. This shows that the landlord was considering her contacts and continuing to engage with her.
The evidence shows that the landlord appropriately reviewed its position on the contact restrictions on 1 October 2021 in line with its policy requirements.
As such there was no maladministration in the landlord’s application of contact restrictions.

Determination (decision)

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.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports about the cleaning of communal areas.
2. The resident’s reports about a roof leak.
3. The resident’s requests for a conifer to be cut back.
4. Its decision to apply contact restrictions.

Reasons

The landlord has not evidenced that it followed its ASB policy in assessing the risks when the resident reported ASB in December 2020 and did not respond at the time. It did not check the motion camera batteries when it said it would and was slow to write to the neighbour.
There was a delay in the landlord paying the compensation it offered on 6 January 2021. However, it increased its offer when it realised its mistake.
There were delays in the landlord responding to some of the resident’s complaints. However, its responses addressed all the issues that the resident had complained about.
The landlord had adequate processes in place to check the quality of cleaning and had responded reasonably to the resident’s reports and queries.
The landlord was already addressing the roofing problem and resolved it shortly after the resident had reported the leak.
The landlord responded quickly when the resident reported the conifer needed trimming.
The landlord had applied contact restrictions in accordance with its policy after it had tried other options.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must provide evidence that it has paid the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her ASB reports.