Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202207288)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207288

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited

8 December 2022

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Response to reports of leaks from the property above.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord that started in 2017. The property is a one-bedroom flat. The landlord said it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
Under the tenancy agreement the landlord will maintain and repair the structure and exterior of the property including ceilings, walls and floors. It says that the landlord is not responsible for appliances making use of the supply of water if a resident has installed it themselves (for example, washing machines).
By signing the tenancy agreement, residents agree that they must not engage in any nuisance or ASB including using or threatening to use violence; intimidation; using abusive or insulting words or behaviour; playing loud music; banging and slamming doors; or throwing things out of windows or off balconies.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will prioritise cases into high, medium or standard cases. A high priority case involves violence or threats of violence or hate crimes and will give a response within one working day. It says that it expects threats of a criminal nature to be made with the police in the first instances and the landlord would then work in conjunction with the police. It says medium priority cases involve damage to property and standard priority involves all other type of nuisance. The response time is within five working days.
The policy says that the landlord will always seek to act quickly in an effort to resolve issues before they escalate. It explains that, where a simple, mutually agreed outcome cannot be reached, it will take appropriate action including mediation, warning interviews/letters, acceptable behaviour contracts, and all available legal remedies including injunctions, possession proceedings and undertakings. The policy also says that the landlord will always take into consideration the vulnerabilities of both complainants and perpetrators of ASB.
The landlord’s most recent responsive repairs policy (from February 2022) says that it had realigned repairs response times in order to give customers some clarity about how long they might need to wait for a repair to be completed. Before February 2022, plastering could take up to 12 months; after that date the time has reduced to 90 days. Its website says that the agreed repair timescale for emergency repairs was twenty–four hours.
The landlord has a two stage formal complaints procedure. It aims to respond at stage one within ten working days and withing fifteen working days at stage two.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will pay discretionary compensation where severe inconvenience has been caused due to delays in providing a service; unreasonable time taken to resolve a problem and/or follow policy and procedure or the temporary loss of an amenity and/or part of the home. It also says that the landlord will take responsibility for dealing with any detriment or damage caused to an individual’s home and/or belongings by a colleague working for it or by any third contractor working on its behalf.

Summary of events

On 19 October 2021 the resident reported a leak from the flat above causing damage to decorating, electrical cabling, windows and flooring of the bathroom. (The resident in this flat was also a tenant of the landlord.) The resident said he wanted leak detectors installed with a 24-hour emergency response to prevent leaks from happening again in the future and causing damage to the property.
On 28 October 2021 the landlord issued a stage one formal complaint response to the resident about a leak into the kitchen of the property. The main points were:
1. Following an earlier leak, the kitchen ceiling was checked and repaired on 3 August 2021 (the final response says this date is incorrect). It noted there was further work booked in to repair the damage to the kitchen which would be completed by 17 February 2022 at the latest; its repairs team would be in touch to arrange a date.
2. The property above was not empty, as the resident had stated. It could not be held responsible for a leak arising from the property above.
3. The resident reported the leak on 16 October 2021 at 8:33am and the work was completed by 4pm the same day.
4. It gave details of how the resident could apply to be rehoused in the local area. It also explained that his request for the cost of repairs and redecoration would need to be addressed through his home contents insurance.
5. It was unable to place leak detectors in the above property as it was not an empty property.
It explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
On 8 November 2021 the landlord issued a final formal complaint response to the resident relating to the leak from the bathroom in the flat above. The main points were:
1. The leak in question came from a supply pipe to the bath. The bath had been fitted new whilst empty, only a few weeks before the leak happened. It said that, clearly a leak should not have occurred from such a new installation. The landlord acknowledged there had been a service failure on its part.
2. It offered the resident compensation of £175 made up of £125 for redecorating costs (based on photos he had provided) and £50 for inconvenience.
3. The landlord apologised that there was incorrect information in its stage one response letter regarding the date and time that the leak occurred. It said the resident reported the leak at 9:31am and the plumber attended 11pm on the same day.
4. It explained that personal injury claims were dealt with by its insurance and risk team and a member of that team would contact him on how to pursue such a claim.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
On 12 December 2021 the resident reported loud music after 10pm from the neighbour.
The resident provided detail of noise from the neighbour on 50 occasions between 7 January and 31 March and five times between 26 May and 20 June 2022.
On 7 January 2022 the resident reported ASB from the neighbour. The landlord’s note of the call included “his noise is unmanageable with lots of stomping and banging. He’s also always got his television really loud. This neighbour is not just antisocial towards myself but to others and we need fast intervention”. The landlord said it would speak with the neighbour and did so on 11 January 2022 when he made counter-allegations of noise.
Later that day the resident told the landlord that his latest encounter with the neighbour had been “really pleasant and I hope we can move forward”.
On 12 January 2022 the neighbour reported noise from the resident. The following day the landlord wrote to both parties with diary sheets to complete.
On 10 February 2022 the resident reported a leak from the flat above. An excerpt from the repairs log evidences that the landlord could not gain access to that flat.
In communication with the landlord, a contractor working for the landlord who attended the property at that time described the neighbour as “aggressive” and said that staff should attend “in twos”. He said that the neighbour had threatened to assault the resident who by the contractor’s account was on the phone to the police as he had arrived.
Later the same day the resident reported “thumping loud music which is literally vibrating the ceiling”; he also told the landlord he had had to report the neighbour to the police due to his threatening behaviour. He provided a video of the incident earlier that day.
On 11 February 2022 the resident said he wanted the landlord to carry out a full inspection of the flat upstairs to check all the pipes and fittings. He added he was still waiting for the kitchen to be replaced from the first leak. He set out the cost of the damage to his kitchen which amounted to £419 and include damaged vinyl flooring, blinds and electronics.
On the same day the resident told the landlord that the first leak from the upstairs had caused significant damage to the work tops and required some new shelves and worktop. In relation to the ASB, the resident said that since his last conversation with the landlord, the noise had continued “the banging around. The slamming doors. I have been logging it but trying to overlook it, but I can’t anymore. I don’t feel safe at home”.
Also on 11 February 2022 the landlord, having watched a video from the resident in which the neighbour had called him a vulgar, slang name, told him that it would be able to get the crime reference from the police. It added it was going to have a case review that morning to discuss escalation and would let him know the outcome. It also said that it would be inviting the neighbour to attend a formal warning interview and that, if his behaviour continued, the case “will be escalated to the enforcement team who would look to take legal action against his tenancy”. The landlord also asked the resident to let it know if there was anything it could do to support him adding it could make a referral to victim support.
On the same day the landlord visited the neighbour and warned him that he was in breach of his tenancy and was at serious risk of losing his tenancy. It explained that his behaviour towards the resident was unacceptable and he was not to speak to or approach him in that way again. It also said that, if it received another complaint it would be passed to its enforcement team and they would look to take legal action.
Later that day the landlord told the resident that it had visited the neighbour to warn him about his behaviour. It explained that the cause of the leak was his washing machine and that had been fixed. It said that the resident should not approach the neighbour and he should contact the landlord if there was a repair issue and contact it for ASB issues or the police, if appropriate.
Also on 11 February 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming that it had received his report concerning a breach of tenancy and/or ASB on 12 January 2022. It said that the report had been logged and that the matter was being investigated and it would contact him again in the near future to discuss what action it proposed to take. The landlord also enclosed diary sheets which it said should be completed and returned to it.
On the same day the resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of the leaks into the property.
On 15 February 2022 the neighbour confirmed that he had had his washing machine fixed.
On the same day the landlord met with the resident. The note of the meeting included the following:
1. An explanation of why it had visited the neighbour on 11 February 2022 to warn the neighbour “fast action and limited availability with police this week”.
2. The resident understood that and explained that it was the neighbour’s behaviour, verbal abuse and non–cooperation that frustrated him the most.
3. The landlord suggested that the neighbour was stressed that his washing machine was leaking and people were very different and dealt with emotions differently and his outburst/verbal abuse could have been down to him being in a stressful situation.
On 17 February 2022 the landlord sent a stage one formal complaint response to the resident about the leak. The main points were:
1. It attended the leak that occurred on 10 February 2022 as an out of hours emergency, but the tenant refused access to carry out any repairs. The landlord explained that, where a tenant refuses access, it was only able to enter someone’s home by order of a County Court Judge.
2. It accessed the property on 11 February 2022 and found that the leak was coming from the tenant’s washing machine, not from a fitting that it was responsible for. It stopped the leak and made safe.
3. It said it was working with its neighbourhood team about this matter and would consider taking action against the neighbour should there be further leaks of that nature again.
4. The landlord acknowledged the inconvenience and damage caused but did not uphold the complaint as it said there was no liability on its part. It said that the resident might be able to make a claim on his home contents insurance, if he held it (as it recommended to all residents).
The landlord explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
On 22 February 2022 the resident told the landlord that he was seeking compensation. He said he wanted to live without fear that he would come home to a damaged property; he said the landlord’s initial repair of the ceiling was not “good enough”.
On 23 February 2022 the landlord issued its final complaint response in relation to the leak from the property above. The main points were:
1. It was sorry to hear that the resident had been affected by a further leak caused by the neighbour above, there was no liability on its part as due to the fabric and construction of the property, the flooring could never be totally waterproof as water can permeate through flooring. It added that plasterboard and plaster could not prevent water leakage because, due to its composition, it was not waterproof.
2. It did not identify any service failure. However, it acknowledged that he had, through no fault of the landlord, suffered a further leak caused by the neighbour and it offered a goodwill gesture of £50.
3. It explained that, with regard to damage to his personal items, he may be able to make a claim on his home contents insurance policy.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
On 24 February 2022 the landlord visited the neighbour again who, it noted, was apologetic for his behaviour. The landlord said it would look into carpets being fitted in his flat to reduce the noise and noted the neighbour would mediate with the resident. The following day, the resident also agreed to mediation and the landlord made a referral on 3 March 2022.
On 25 February 2022 the landlord told the resident it had refused a special housing application as these were reserved for “life at risk” cases which had supporting evidence from the police. It explained the bidding system for a move to a different property.
On 8 March 2022 the resident told the landlord that the noise was still a concern especially in the morning between 6:30 and 7am when there was really loud thudding, banging and door slamming “so hard that it rocks my whole flat and the knocker on the door knocks. It’s becoming unbearable at unsociable times”.
On 11 March 2022 the landlord confirmed to the resident would be put on a waiting list for noise monitoring equipment. On the same day, the landlord asked the local authority for the resident to be provided with noise monitoring equipment, it said that he would have to make a fresh complaint to them as he had withdrawn his previous one. While there is no evidence that this information was passed on to the resident, he made a further complaint to the local authority a few days later.
On 14 March 2022 at 5am the resident reported that the neighbour was banging and playing “ridiculously loud music”. He said he was not going to go ahead with mediation. He asked for confirmation that the ASB would be dealt with and provided incident logs. The landlord responded giving details of the local authority’s environmental health team, citizens advice and the Ombudsman. The landlord added the resident would have to open a case with the local authority.
On the same day the landlord wrote to residents in the same street as the neighbour asking for details of any incidents of ASB they had encountered.
On 19 March 2022 the resident told the landlord the neighbour had been blasting music since 10pm the previous evening. He said he had completed noise logs and sent them to the local authority, which was reopening his complaint. He said he was considering taking legal action.
On 21 March 2022 the resident reported that the neighbour turned on his TV to maximum volume at 5:15am every day and started his “spree of banging”. He added the neighbour was jumping around the living room this morning and dragging his sofa across the room. His banging was so bad it caused a picture frame to fall of my wall due to the vibrations”. He asked for a response by the end of the day.
On the same day the landlord told the resident that the neighbour would receive a final warning that week and, if the nuisance continued, the case would be referred to the enforcement team.
On 29 March 2022 the resident reported that the neighbour had thrown food out of his window. On the same day he reported that the neighbour had been making violent threats towards him. The resident asked the landlord to take action by the following day.
In an internal email on 30 March 2022, the landlord noted that it had advised the resident that a warning interview would be conducted with the neighbour that week but, unfortunately, due to workload and arranging a suitable date, the interview would be held on 31 March 2022. It noted further that, having reviewed the case, it felt that the environmental health team needed to take the lead as it required evidence to take it further.
On 31 March 2022 the landlord interviewed the neighbour. It noted the following:
1. This was the neighbour’s final warning and gave him a written warning which explained that, if it received any further reports (of deliberately causing noise nuisance on a regular basis, making indirect threats about the resident or throwing food outside), it would be referred to the enforcement team.
2. The neighbour acknowledged he was deliberately making noise in retaliation
3. The landlord stressed that mediation was the best solution.
4. It did not have evidence for eviction, but the noise recording equipment might pick up evidence, so the neighbour needed to stop retaliating.
5. The neighbour also acknowledged he had thrown food outside and said he would stop doing that.
On 17 April 2022 the resident reported a further leak; he emailed the same day to say he and his partner had been to the neighbour’s flat to help clear up the water; the neighbour had been “very apologetic”. He said some pipework under the washing machine had been replaced that day.
On 19 April 2022 the resident confirmed he had had no recent ASB issues with the neighbour. He said he would make an insurance claim for the damage to his kitchen. On 11 May 2022 the landlord closed the ASB case.
In the morning of 26 May 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that “the banging and loud TV has started again” from the neighbour. In response the landlord said that the neighbour had also reported “banging from your flat late in the evening and early hours in the morning”. It offered mediation while awaiting noise monitoring equipment from the local authority.
The resident then told the landlord that the neighbour had threatened that when his son got out of prison he was “going to get him to batter me”. He said other neighbours had witnessed this. He said that, if the landlord did not act, “I will defend myself. I am going to be reporting this to the police again. I will be blaming [the landlord] if I end up in any harm after months of telling you about this”. The landlord told the resident to report any threats to the police.
On the same day the landlord told the resident that it would continue to offer mediation and wait for the local authority to provide noise monitoring equipment.
On 27 May 2022 the resident told the landlord that he had had an assessment with his GP that day; he asked where to send his personal injury claim regarding the damages caused by the tenant above for which he believed the landlord had not taken sufficient action to resolve. This Service understands that the resident provided the landlord with notes from his GP the same day which stated he had “mixed anxiety and depressive disorder”. In these notes the resident describes how the neighbour had acted in an intimidating manner towards him; how he no longer felt safe at home and that he had intrusive thoughts about what was happening to his home when he was at work. It notes that the resident “expressed frustration at lack of control to change the stressful situation he finds himself in”.
On 7 June 2022 the landlord spoke to the neighbour who acknowledged threatening the resident and said he did so in retaliation to noise from the resident. The landlord told him that “and if this continues, he is at risk of this case being passed to enforcement”. It advised him not to react to this and to continue to stay out of the way of the resident and not to “play loud music etc”.
On 24 June 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident and gave the following information:
1. It had lodged his personal injury claim with its insurers.
2. It said it was satisfied with its handling of his ASB case which was now closed. It offered to open a new one and also offered mediation.
3. It had no outstanding complaints.
4. It would not pay any compensation or relocate him, as he had requested because it believed it had supported him in line with its policies.
5. It detailed the action taken in relation to his ASB case.
On 29 June 2022 the police confirmed to the landlord that the resident had only reported threats to them, not the assault.
On 13 July 2022 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of his ASB reports. On 19 July 2022 the landlord issued a stage one formal complaint response in response to its handling of reports of ASB. The main points were:
1. There had been numerous contacts between the resident and the neighbourhood housing officer.
2. The alleged perpetrator has been spoken to when reports have been received and letters sent detailing action.
3. Mediation was offered and initially accepted but that was subsequently been refused by the resident. The landlord said it would be happy to offer it again in an attempt to forge a better relationship between him and the neighbour. Victim support had also been offered to the resident but was refused.
4. It had also attempted to gain independent witnesses to the incidents and had sent letters to neighbouring properties but had had no response.
5. It had requested diary sheets and contact to the local authority’s environmental health team, but these had not been progressed and the case with environmental health had been closed.
6. It explained that diary sheets were very important in order for it to gather evidence and progress a case as these would form part of any formal action.
7. It noted that the resident was taking up allegations of assault and verbal threats with the police.
8. The ASB case was closed in May 2022 as no more diary sheets were received.
9. It added, if the resident had any recent information that he felt needed further investigation, then it would review that.
The landlord explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
On 27 July 2022 the landlord issued its final complaint response in relation to the resident’s complaints about ASB. The main points were:
1. It had reviewed an audio recording from June 2022 and deemed the noise of a carpet being fitted in the property above as reasonable noise.
2. It had reviewed the incident sheets the resident had provided up to and including February 2022 and had decided there was insufficient evidence to take enforcement action against the neighbour.
3. It had written to the resident explaining it had closed the ASB case in May 2022 in line with its procedures because he had not provided any further reports of ASB or incident sheets.
4. It explained that, in order to take enforcement action against the neighbour, it would have to show the court that any legal action was reasonable and proportionate and that the incidents were ongoing.
5. It said it had a report from the police who had interviewed other residents. This said that the problems the resident had experienced were not affecting other residents in the area; it added there had been conflicting accounts as to who the perpetrator was, and this made it more difficult to take enforcement action.
6. In relation to a threat from the neighbour, the police had said that the resident could make a statement and they would interview the neighbour, but he had declined that.
7. The landlord said that, if the ASB was ongoing, the resident should provide incident sheets as they would need evidence for any enforcement action.
The landlord did not uphold the complaint; it signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
The resident was unhappy with that response telling the landlord it had failed to safeguard him or handle his complaints correctly. He told the landlord in an email of 30 July 2022 that every entry in the diary sheet he provided had a video to go with it that were taken between midnight and 6am. He said, had the landlord investigated properly, it would have been aware of that.
On 8 August 2022 the local authority thanked the resident for returning the log sheet and explained it would now try to witness the ASB by visiting the property at the times the resident had noted it occurred. It said it would attempt three times and, if they were unsuccessful, would install noise monitoring equipment.
This Service has seen an undated letter making a personal injury claim from the resident to the landlord which stated that it had caused a detrimental impact to his mental health which had resulted in him being diagnosed with anxiety and depression and resulted in harm in the form of mental health deterioration. He said that his anxiety about further leaks had meant that he had installed 24/7 surveillance of his kitchen ceiling.
In October 2022 the local authority contacted the resident about installing noise monitoring equipment.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, he said the landlord had not followed its procedures as it failed to follow up on enforcement action against the neighbour. He said he had been left in a vulnerable situation; he described how the property was his security and safe place and now he did not feel comfortable there; he has no escape. He said the landlord had ignored his vulnerabilities.
The resident said that he wanted compensation; he explained that the events complained about had “turned his life upside down” and the landlord had not helped him.

Assessment and findings

The resident raised with the Ombudsman some wording used by the landlord in their records after he had made a subject access request. This matter has not been through the landlord’s formal complaint procedure therefore the Ombudsman is unable to make a determination on this matter.

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of anti-social behaviour and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for anti-social behaviour; our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against neighbours.
The landlord’s initial handling of the resident’s reports of ASB was appropriate by taking action in line with its ASB policy – speaking to the neighbour and, after an initial counter allegation, providing diary sheets to both parties to record incidents of noise. There is no evidence, however, that it prioritised the case as high, medium or standard priority.
Following the threat of assault on 10 February 2022 (which coincided with the leak of the same day), the landlord again acted appropriately by visiting the neighbour and giving him a verbal warning that the case would be referred to enforcement, if it received another report of ASB.
The landlord also acted appropriately at this time by giving the resident information about what steps it was taking, offering him a referral to a support service, offering both parties mediation to try to resolve matters and, earlier the next month, checking with other residents in the area to see if they were being affected by these issues.
The resident continued to report loud music and the landlord said towards the end of March 2022 that it would give the neighbour a final warning that week. By the time that meeting had taken place at the end of that month, the resident had reported further threats from the neighbour. At this time the landlord decided that it needed further evidence about the extent of the noise nuisance and that noise monitoring equipment from the local authority would be required. While shortly after that decision had been made the neighbour acknowledged making the noise deliberately, the landlord’s decision was reasonable in order to get independent evidence of the extent of the noise to support enforcement action.
In June 2022 the landlord gave the neighbour a third warning that it would pass his case for enforcement action. However, by this time, the neighbour himself had acknowledged he was committing ASB by deliberately making noise and throwing food out of a window. There had also been reports of three separate reports of threats from the neighbour. The first had been witnessed by a contractor and reported immediately to the landlord; the resident said that other neighbours had witnessed the third incident. The evidence is not clear on what action the landlord took to seek witness statements from those neighbours which could have been used as evidence in any enforcement action. In June 2022 neighbour himself acknowledged making threats towards the resident.
Given this consistent threatening behaviour by the neighbour, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have referred the case for possible enforcement action. While this Service cannot say with any certainty what action would have been taken and whether it would have been successful, such a referral would have been in line with its ASB policy and would have demonstrated to the resident that the landlord was taking appropriate action to try to resolve matters. The landlord’s failure to do so was a significant service failure.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The Ombudsman cannot order damages; that would be for a court or insurance company to decide on, and the landlord acted appropriately by referring the resident’s personal injury claim to its insurer.
While the Ombudsman is unable to evaluate medical evidence, we will take this into account when considering the resident’s circumstances. The landlord’s failure to make a referral for potential enforcement action in response to the resident’s reports of threatening behaviour evidently made him feel unsupported and that caused him distress and frustration. The Ombudsman recognises that some of our residents’ circumstances mean that they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability. Consideration of any aggravating factors (such as a resident’s mental health condition) could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
Financial compensation of £400 is appropriate here for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to act effectively to try to resolve matters.
Further orders have been made, below, for the training to be given to all staff dealing with ASB cases to strengthen their knowledge and confidence on when a referral should be made for enforcement action; and also that, if the resident reports further threats from the neighbour, the landlord should review the ASB file and consider whether to progress for enforcement action. When making such decisions the landlord should take into account any vulnerabilities of the resident.

The landlord’s response to reports of leaks from the property above

The evidence shows that there were two leaks into the property from the flat above for the period of time under consideration (up to the final complaint response of 23 February 2022):

16 October 2021 from the bath.

10 February and 17 April 2022 from the washing machine.

The landlord repaired the bath leak the same day; it repaired the leak from the washing machine on 11 February 2022 as the resident would not allow access.
The landlord acknowledged that it was at fault for the bath leak. It acted appropriately by stopping the leak and subsequently repairing the ceiling in line with its timescale for repairs under its responsive repairs policy. The landlord also offered the resident compensation of £175 made up of £125 for redecorating costs and £50 for inconvenience. While the landlord could have expected the resident to have made a claim on its liability insurance for the damage caused, this offer of compensation demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to achieve a resolution in this instance.
While the landlord was not responsible for the repair of the washing machine leak, it did gain access and stop the leak the following day. It was reasonable for the landlord to direct the resident to his home contents insurer because the leak was an accident for which it was not responsible. The landlord was not obliged to offer compensation but did offer £50 as recognition of the inconvenience caused.
Overall, the landlord has offered redress to the resident that recognised the inconvenience to him and acted appropriately by signposting him to his home contents insurer.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints about ASB and the leaks was appropriate as they were in line with the timescales set out in its formal complaints procedures. While an additional final response for the leaks was issued, this was reasonable given the further leak in February 2022.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint with respect to its response to reports of leaks from the property above.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

While the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise was initially appropriate; it would have been reasonable for it to have made a referral to its enforcement team given the consistent threats from the neighbour which were witnessed and that the neighbour acknowledged making. It was reasonable for the landlord to refer a personal injury claim from the resident to its insurer.
While it was not under an obligation to do so, the landlord offered proportionate redress for the leaks. It was reasonable for it to signpost the resident to make a claim on his home contents insurance policy.
The landlord’s complaint handling was appropriate and in line with its complaints procedure.

Orders

The landlord will carry out the following orders within twenty working days of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman of its compliance with these orders:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £400 for the impact on the resident caused by its mishandling of his reports of ASB.
3. Give training to all staff dealing with ASB cases to strengthen their knowledge and confidence on when a referral should be made for enforcement action.
4. If the resident reports further threats from the neighbour, review the ASB file and consider whether to progress for enforcement action. When making such decisions the landlord should take into account any vulnerabilities of the resident.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord takes the following action:
1. Pays the resident the compensation it previously offered of £225 (if it has not already done so).
2. Gives an update to the resident on his personal injury claim.