Redditch Borough Council (202213189)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213189

Redditch Borough Council

21 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour.
2. The resident’s rehousing request.
3. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a Council. The tenancy commenced on 20 June 2016. The property is a 1-bedroom flat.
The resident has advised that she has been impacted by the behaviour of her neighbour since she moved into the property in 2015. This service has seen evidence of the resident making intermittent reports about her neighbour to the landlord between 16 July 2019 and 13 May 2021. The reports relate to the neighbour placing their bench too close to her entrance, which she said made her feel trapped and lacked respect for her person, smoking (both cigarettes and illegal drugs), shouting, swearing, being abusive and lots of people coming into and out of the neighbour’s property.
This service has also seen evidence relating to this time of counter allegation made by the neighbour as well as supporting evidence from Occupational Health, a Job Coach, the resident’s MP and her GP advising of the ‘‘difficult situation’’ the resident was having with her neighbour.

Scope

The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still “live”, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
The last evidence seen by this Service of the resident reporting ASB by her neighbour, prior to making her formal complaint, was on 31 May 2021. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents set out above provide a contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events following the resident’s complaint to the landlord of 6 June 2022.
It is evident that the situation with her neighbour has been very distressing for the resident, the resident having reported concerns about the impact this had had on her mental and physical health, her relationships and her ability to work. However this Service cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on physical or mental health. This is because an assessment of fairness in such cases requires a level of expertise that the Ombudsman is unable to provide.
Whilst we cannot consider these matters, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any failures by the landlord. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her mental and physical health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
As part of her complaint to the landlord, the resident also raised concerns about the Council’s decision not to award priority banding on the grounds of medical needs and about the level of assistance offered with regards to her request to be referred to another local authority under the Council’s Duty to Refer obligations. However, this Service cannot consider decisions made under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996, such as housing banding, nor can it consider whether the Council acted appropriately in respect of its Duty to Refer. This is because these fall within the Council’s statutory obligations as a local authority, and not as part of its landlord function. The resident has been advised separately that were she to wish to pursue these elements of her complaint she may wish to contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
For clarity, the only element of the residents complaint about the landlord’s response to her rehousing request that this service can therefore consider is in regards to the option of a mutual exchange.

Summary of events

On 6 June 2022 the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord.The resident referred to 7 years of ASB by her neighbour and that the evidence she had gathered had been ignored.
On 14 June 2022, the resident contact the landlord to report ASB by her neighbour, which she said occurred on 10 June 2022, starting in the afternoon and going on until late at night. The resident referred to the neighbour being an addict, that they were very drunk by the late hours of the night and that she heard them arguing loudly and banging on the stairs. The landlord spoke to the neighbour who denied the allegations. The landlord noted that the neighbour would be happy to sign an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement (ABC) if the resident would also sign.
The landlord responded to the resident on 24 June 2022 stating that as this was part of an ongoing nuisance case, it was treating the resident’s contact of 6 June 2022 as a request for an update on the case. The landlord went on to say that:
1. For several years the resident had been reporting ongoing issues with her neighbour including shouting, swearing, having lots of people in and out of their property, smoking in the front gardens and her neighbour being abusive to her when they walked by.
2. The same neighbour had made counter allegations against the resident, saying that the resident had also been abusive and that they banged on their ceiling, which caused the neighbour annoyance.
3. There were long periods where there were no reports made by either party and so assessing the extent of this issue was problematic, as it was clearly not persistent or regular.
4. It had liaised with the Police on this matter who advise that they had no immediate concerns for the resident or her neighbour’s welfare and that it appeared both parties simply had contrasting lifestyles, that on occasion lead to upset and discontent between them. The landlord said that it agreed with this position.
5. It was its intention to meet with the resident and her neighbour again soon to request both take responsibility for their actions to seek resolution long term.
On 29 June 2022 the landlord contacted the resident, noting that she had refused to sign an ABC as she felt that if she did she would be agreeing to the neighbour’s counter allegations. The landlord noted at that time that it had asked the resident if she would start gathering evidence of ASB. The landlord explained that it could not use evidence that the resident had provided in 2016, as it would need up to date evidence if it were to seek any legal action against the neighbour. The landlord also noted that it sent the resident a link for the ASB App and discussed the possibility of mediation in the future.
On 4 July 2022, the resident emailed landlord to report a party at her neighbour’s property on 1 June 2022, which she said lasted ‘‘continuously’’ until the afternoon of 3 June 2022. The resident reported the ‘‘stench’’ of smoking drugs and people coming and going, and hanging around, which meant she could not go into the garden. She also said that on 2 June 2022 she was using a wooden mallet to thin a chicken fillet for her lunch, when the neighbour starting yelling in her direction, ‘‘drunk’’ and ‘‘stoned’’, accusing her of provoking them.
At this time the resident also reported that the ASB App was not working. The landlord’s records note that it spoke to the resident to talk her through how to use it and that there had been no other reported issues with the App.
On 12 July 2022, the landlord completed a Prevention Enforcement Group (PEG) referral for the resident and her neighbour.
The landlord’s records note that it spoke to the resident on 15 August 2022. The landlord noted that it had advised the resident that mediation was an opportunity for both parties to voice their issues. It then went on to note that the resident started shouting saying that the complaints the neighbour had made about her were lies, and that she did not want to proceed with any mediation.
The following day, 15 August 2022, the resident emailed landlord to report that her neighbour had been drunk and under the influence of stimulants on 12 August, around 9pm, and again on 13 August 2022 from early afternoon to around 3am. The resident said that her neighbour was arguing loudly all the time. The landlord emailed the resident the same day to ask if she could email over any recordings. The landlord emailed the resident again on 16 August 2022, asking if she any evidence in relation to the recent incident.
The landlord wrote to the resident again on 1 and 4 November 2022, in which it:
1. Said that, on the advice of its solicitors, it had offered mediation between both parties, which both had refused. The landlord said that this made it very difficult for it to resolve the issues that both were experiencing.
2. Advised that any action it took against somebody’s tenancy could only be heard in court, and sporadic domestic incidents would not be sufficient to meet the threshold for court action.
3. Said that no evidence had become apparent to substantiate any further enforcement or legal action and that the reported incidents did not meet the threshold for noise nuisance or ASB. The landlord included in its response a definition what was and what was not noise nuisance and ASB.
4. Suggested Mediation and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts.
On 21 November 2022, following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord asking that it provide the resident with a response to her complaint of 6 June 2022, this was to be provided no later than 5 December 2022.
This Service wrote to the landlord again on 27 January 2023 asking that it provide a response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord was asked to provide this no later than 3 February 2023.
On 7 February 2023:
1. This Service contacted the landlord to warn that if it failed to provide a complaint response by 14 February 2023, it would be issued with a Complaint Handling Failure Order.
2. The landlord responded to this Service saying that it was without a dedicated complaints officer at that time, and that as it was quite a complex case to had taken longer than anticipated to provide a response. The landlord said that it would prioritise the case for response.
3. The resident contacted this Service to advise that the landlord had contacted her by email, referring to a potential mutual exchange, however the area where the property was location was known for its ASB and she needed a safe, quiet place to live.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 8 February 2023, stating that this was received on 7 February 2023. The landlord said the resident would receive its stage 1 response no later than 21 February 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 February 2023, in which it:
1. Acknowledged that it failed to recognise the resident’s contact of 6 June 2022 as a complaint and that it also failed to respond as required when contacted by this Service.
2. Said that, with regards to the resident’s reports of ASB:
  1. Several months of investigation had produced no evidence to take any further proportionate enforcement action.
  2. The resident’s ASB case was escalated to its Prevention and Enforcement Group (PEG) who decided that there was no breach of tenancy by either party that warranted formal enforcement action or a supported move for any party. The landlord explained that this was because both parties were culpable of low level, sporadic, and occasional nuisance behaviour, that was attributable to a clash of lifestyles. The panel recommended that mediation was offered again and that the resident register with the ASB App on her mobile phone, so she could continue to easily record any noise nuisance for monitoring.
  3. Extensive advice was given to the resident to assist in her understanding of the decision, the thresholds for enforcement action for nuisance and ASB. The landlord also highlighted the ongoing work Tenancy Officer had been doing with the resident and others, including with her Job Coach, to support and guide her, as requested, to achieve solutions to her housing issues.
  4. The Tenancy Officer along with support staff from the ASB App, provided personalised support with installing and registering the App and in dealing with the resident’s difficulties in accessing and using it. However the resident attributed her difficulties to the landlord not wanting her to access the App.
  5. The resident was also invited to engage in mediation and both parties were invited to voluntarily enter an Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC). However, the resident was the only party to refuse to do either.
3. Said with regards to the resident’s rehousing request:
  1. That this had been passed to its Tenancy Officer who visited the resident to offer the advice and support she was seeking. The resident advised that her desired outcome was a move and was provided with advice on how best to achieve a transfer to her chosen destination, which was outside of the area.
  2. On 7 February 2023, the tenancy officer identified an opportunity for the resident to mutually exchange with another resident, but this was refused as the resident wanted to move to London to be closer to her family and friends.
The resident emailed the landlord to escalate her complaint on 16 March 2023 stating that there were ‘‘massive inconsistencies and untruth’’ in its stage 1 response. The resident ‘‘strongly disagreed‘’ that her reports were low level and said that the landlord had not been in regular contact with her, and reiterated her concerns that her complaint of 6 June 2022 was not treated as such. The resident also said that the Tenancy Officer had not offered her the advice or support she needed. (It is noted that this mainly focused on the resident’s request to be moved on medical grounds and to be referred to another local authority, which has previously explained as being outside of the remit of this investigation). The resident also challenged the decision of the PEG, referring to historic events which she said the Police used to attend almost every day but stopped coming despite her calls. The resident said that this was because they said that there was nothing more they could do.
On 19 May 2023, this Service contacted the landlord to say that the resident had been advised that she would receive its stage 2 response by 11 April 2023 but had not done so. The landlord was advised to provide its response by 6 June 2023.
The landlord issued its final response on 26 May 2023, in which it said:
1. Its officer responding to the resident’s complaint of 6 June 2022 as an enquiry was appropriate.
2. With regards to the resident’s reports of ASB:
  1. Its records showed that officers had communicated throughout in person, by email and in writing. Officers had also been quite clear as to the position of the resident’s original ASB/ Nuisance complaint, with a full outcome letter being sent to her on 4 November 2022.
  2. It had found no evidence to support that this was anything above a low-level neighbour nuisance/conflict of lifestyles dispute and that whilst it appreciated that any neighbour nuisance can be upsetting, unfortunately it did not believe that it required further escalation.
  3. That correct procedures had taken place throughout, including a referral to the PEG, the outcome of which was provided to the resident in its correspondence of 4 November 2022.
3. With regards to the resident’s rehousing request:
  1. That advice and guidance on mutual exchange had already been provided by its Neighbourhood and Tenancy Officers. This led to a possible suitable mutual exchange being identified, however the resident chose not to take this forward. The landlord stated that there was no obligation for it to find mutual exchanges for residents, its role being to simply facilitate a move on request. When Officers identified a possible property this was done simply to try and help.
  2. The Tenancy Team would continue to support with achieving a mutual exchange within and outside of the borough and would continue to offer and provide mediation services at any time there was voluntary agreement by both parties.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of ASB by her neighbour.

It is important to note that it is not the purpose of this report to investigate any of the alleged ASB itself, to apportion blame or to assess the credibility of the reports made by the resident. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and whether the landlord behaved reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s ASB policy:
1. Defines ASB as ‘any behaviour by an individual or group which makes another person or group feel harassed, alarmed, threatened or distressed. It includes a variety of behaviour that can blight the quality of community life and is based on individual perception. Anti-Social Behaviour may constitute a nuisance and annoyance, harassment or criminal activity’.
2. States that the first stage in investigating reports of ASB is to engage with all parties involved in order to try and resolve the situation in a mutually acceptable manner. The landlord will investigate initial complaints of neighbour nuisance and work closely with the Police and other agencies, to receive and share information to ensure there is a joined-up approach in dealing with difficult and challenging situations.
3. Refers to acceptable behaviour contracts (ABCs) stating that these contracts are voluntary agreements between an individual, the landlord and the Police, and that either it or the Police may propose an ABC where it considered appropriate.
In the 11 months period covered by this report, this Service has seen evidence of the resident making 3 reports regarding the behaviour of her neighbours to the landlord. These reports included, drunkenness, shouting, banging, the ‘‘stench’’ of smoking drugs and people coming and going, and hanging around, which meant she could not go into the garden and that the neighbour yelled in her direction, ‘‘drunk’’ and ‘‘stoned’’, accusing her of provoking them.
Whilst these reports were intermittent, it is evident that the resident found the actions of her neighbour to be harassing, alarming, threatening and distressing and as such it was appropriate for the landlord to respond to her reports in line with its ASB policy.
In response to the resident’s reports the landlord spoke to the neighbour, suggested that both parties sign acceptable behaviour agreements, provided the resident with access to an ASB App, provided support with its use and offered mediation.
The case was also referred to the landlord’s Prevention Enforcement Group (PEG), the purpose of which is to ‘discuss and agree actions in complex enforcement cases’, ‘to ensure the most appropriate use of resources across the landlord, external agencies and partners’, ‘to review internal information provided by external agencies to ensure a holistic approach and consider what has taken place prior to considering the appropriateness and proportionality of legal action’.
The finds of the PEG were that both parties were to be reoffered mediation and for the case to be closed. The PEG explained that the reason for its decision was that both residents regularly complained about each other but there was no evidence of any breach of tenancy having taken place by either party. There was no police involvement and both parties had been invited to engage with an ABC, which the resident refused to sign.
Overall, and having considered all the evidence, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB by her neighbour. Whilst it is acknowledged that the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions and would like it to take more robust formal action again her neighbour, ultimately as there was a lack of conclusive evidence it was reasonable for the landlord to not take more formal action at that time.
This was clearly a complicated situation for both the resident and the landlord to resolve. It is also understood that there counter allegations made about the resident by her neighbour during this time. However, overall and taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, this Service is satisfied that the actions taken by the landlord were reasonable, proportionate and appropriate, and in accordance with its ASB policy.

The resident’s rehousing request.

As has been previously explained, this investigation has not considered the resident’s complaint about the Council’s decision to not award priority banding on the grounds of medical needs nor whether it acted reasonably in respect of its Duty to Refer obligations, as these falls within the remit of the LGSCO.
This assessment will therefore focus on whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably in respect of a mutual exchange option in relation to the resident’s rehousing request.
A mutual exchange is when a resident legally swaps home with another council or housing association resident. In order to do a mutual exchange the resident needs to find someone to swap with, usually using a tenancy exchange website. Once an appropriate swap is found the resident needs to obtain written permission from the landlord for the swap to go ahead.
It is the resident’s responsibility to find a suitable person to exchange their home with. The landlord is not obliged to do so but it is good practice for it to assist residents to do this by, for example, making the case for mutual exchange, supporting the resident in accessing, and using, mutual exchange websites and reviewing matches.
In this case it is evident that the landlord did make the case for a mutual exchange and provided support with the resident accessing this resolution. It is also evident that the landlord attempted to assist the resident by reviewing and offering a potential mutual exchange opportunity, which the resident decline. In its final response the landlord also said that it would continue to support with achieving a mutual exchange which evidences its commitment to assist the resident with a finding alternative accommodation through this process.
In light of the above, and taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, this Service is satisfied that the actions taken by the landlord in respect of a mutual exchange option for the resident were fair, reasonable and solution focused.
It is unclear from the evidence provided whether part of the discussion the Tenancy Officer had with the resident when they visited her also included supporting in using the mutual exchange website. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to continue to offer the support suggested in its final response with regards to a mutual exchange, including using the mutual exchange website, if this would be something that the resident would find helpful.

The associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as ‘any expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action, by the Housing Service, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf (such as a partner or contractor), affecting and individual resident or group of residents and that requires a response’. The definition is in line with that given in this Service’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process which states that:
1. Complaints must be acknowledged at stage 1 within 5 working day, with a response being issued within 10 working days from the receipt of the complaint.
2. Stage 2 responses will be issued within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated to stage 2.
3. If an extension of time is needed to produce a resolution / response then an explanation and a date for response must be agreed with the resident. The extension of time should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
The resident logged a formal online complaint with the landlord on 6 June 2022. This clearly expressed the resident’s dissatisfaction with how the landlord had been handling her reports of ASB, specifically that the evidence she had gathered had been ignored. As such the landlord would have been expected to have recognised this as a formal complaint, acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days and issued its stage 1 response within 10 working days of 6 June 2022.
However, the landlord failed to do so, instead treating the resident’s complaint as an enquiry and responded as such. It is noted that this response was not provided until 24 June 2022, some 14 working days later and after the resident had made another report about her neighbour on 14 June 2022. Given that was the case it is understandable that the resident would feel that the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously.
Following contact from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord on 21 November 2022 and 3 February 2023, asking that it respond to the resident’s complaint of 6 June 2022. The landlord did not do so and so, on 7 February 2023, this Service contacted the landlord for a third time asking that it provide the resident with its stage 1 response to her complaint and warning that if it did not do so it would be issued with a complaint handling failure order.
Having been so warned, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 8 February 2023. However, if failed to also acknowledge that the complaint was initially made on 6 June 2022, instead stating that it had been received on 7 February 2023.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 14 February 2023, some 8 months days after the resident had initially logged her complaint on 6 June 2022. This was an excessive and unreasonable length of time for the resident to have to wait for the landlord to provide its response to her complaint. In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged its failure to recognise the resident’s contact of 6 June 2022 as a formal complaint and for its failure to provide its response, despite having been contacted by this Service, within a reasonable period of time.
Whilst this went some way to address the significant detriment to the resident as a result of this failure, the response provided no apology or explanation for those failures, except for a vague reference to ‘‘various operational reasons’’. Further, given the extent of the acknowledged failures this Service would also expect the landlord to take steps to put things right and to learn from its findings, however, it failed to do so on both counts.
It is noted that in correspondence with this Service on 7 February 2023, and prior to issuing its stage response, the landlord advised that it did not have dedicated complaints officer, the case was quite complex and due to the amount of information it had taken longer than anticipated for it to response. Whilst these may be reasons for the delay in its response these alone do not justify the excessive length of time the resident had had to wait for its response. Further, and in accordance with both its own complaints policy, and this Service’s complaint handling code, were there to be a delay in the landlord being able to issue its response it should have provided the resident with an explanation for this and agreed with her a date for response, which it did not do.
The resident escalated her complaint on 16 March 2023. In accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy, it should have issued its stage 2 response within 20 working days, this being no later than 13 April 2023. However, again the landlord failed to comply with the timescales set out in its complaints policy, it not providing its final response until 26 May 2023, 20 working days outside of the required timescale. Again, the landlord failed to contact the resident to advise of a potential delay in its response, provide an explanation or agree a date for its response.
It was not until this Service again contacted the landlord on 19 May 2023 to chase its stage 2 response that this was issued. In this case the landlord did apologise for the delay in its response. However, it again failed to provide the resident with any explanation for the delay, to acknowledge any distress or inconvenience this may have caused her or to evidence any learning from the complaint.
Further, the landlord reversed the position given in its stage 1 response with regards to its failure to recognise the resident’s complaint of 6 June 2022 as a formal complaint. Instead it stated that treating this as an enquiry was an appropriate response and that officers were being as clear as they could be, noting that the use of the term ‘complaint’ with regards to ASB may have led to some confusion.
Whilst it is the case that when residents report ASB to landlords these are often referred to as complaints, in this case, the resident’s contact with the landlord on 6 June 2022 was clearly a complaint about the service she had received from the landlord and so the landlord changing its position in its stage 2 response was neither fair nor reasonable.
In light of the above, and taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, a finding of maladministration has been made.
In order to provide redress for its complaint handling failures, the landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident and to pay her £300 compensation. This amount being in line with the level compensation suggested in this Service’s Remedies guidance in situations where the landlord has acknowledged some failings but has made no attempt to put things right.
The landlord has also been ordered to carry out a management review of the complaint handling failures identified in this report. The landlord is then to confirm to this service what steps it has taken to ensure that similar failings do not happen in the future, such as staff training and reviewing processes in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by her neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s rehousing request.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

In the 11 months period covered by this report, this Service has seen evidence of the resident making 3 reports regarding the behaviour of her neighbours to the landlord. The landlord’s actions were an appropriate response to these reports demonstrating that it had taken steps to consider how to resolve the ASB reports in accordance with its policy and procedure. The landlord spoke to the neighbour, suggested that both parties sign acceptable behaviour agreements, provided the resident with access to an ASB App, provided support with its use and offered mediation. It also referred the case to its Prevention Enforcement Group (PEG) who concluded that that both residents regularly complained about each other but there was no evidence of any breach of tenancy having taken place by either party that warranted formal enforcement action or a supported move for any party.
The landlord made the case for a mutual exchange and provided support with the resident accessing this resolution. The landlord also attempted to assist the resident by reviewing and offering a potential mutual exchange opportunity, which the resident declined. In its final response the landlord also offered to continue to support to the resident were she to wish to pursue a mutual exchange solution to her rehousing request.
There were significant failures by the landlord throughout the complaints process including a failure to identify the resident’s contact of 6 June 2022 as a formal complaint and excessive delays in its responses at both stage 1 and stage 2, despite intervention by this Service. In its responses the landlord acknowledged some of its failures but did not go far enough. It failed to apologise, or provide a reasonable explanation to the resident, for the delay in its responses. It also failed to either provide the resident with any offer of redress for its failures, which evidently caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to her, or to evidence that it had taken any learning from the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

That within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Apologise and pay the resident £300 compensation for its failures with regards to its handling of her complaint.
2. To carry out a management review of the complaint handling failures identified in this report. The landlord is then to confirm to this service what steps it has taken to ensure that similar failings do not happen in the future, such as staff training and reviewing processes in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Recommendation

If it has not done so already, and if it would be something that she would find helpful, it is recommended that the landlord continues to offers support to the resident with regards to the mutual exchange process, including in relation to using the mutual exchange website.