Warwick District Council (202309354)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309354

Warwick District Council

12 August 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 repairs to communal areas.
2. Concerns about the cleanliness of the building, and fly tipping.
3. Reports of Antisocial behaviour (ASB) in the communal areas of the property.
4. Reports of ASB from a neighbour.
5. Concerns about a shipping container in the communal garden of the property.
6. Concerns about the conduct of its staff.
7. Concerns that the shipping container in the communal garden caused him a financial loss.
8. Reports of a data breach.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a 1 bedroom first floor flat, and the landlord is the freeholder of the building. The resident purchased the lease to his property in October 2019. The landlord recorded the resident as vulnerable due to having a disability, and a mental health condition.
In May 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint about its management of the communal areas in the building, and said he had been reporting issues and “nothing” was being done about them. The resident contacted the landlord in July 2020 and said he was unhappy that a shipping container had been placed in the communal garden by a neighbouring shop. The resident contacted the landlord to raise further concerns about its management of the communal areas of the building in July and August 2020.
The resident made a further complaint about ASB in the communal areas of the building in September 2020. The resident raised concerns about the cleanliness of the building, and said that he had experienced “hate crime” and “abuse” from his neighbours. The landlord sent a warning letter to all residents in the building about the cleanliness of the communal areas on 30 September 2020, and opened an ASB case. The landlord logged the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint on 12 October 2020. The resident sought to raise a further complaint about its handling of the ASB case, and its management of the communal areas of the building, on 3 November 2020. It does not appear the landlord issued a complaint response at the time.
In November 2020, the landlord completed 2 inspections in relation to the resident’s concerns about the communal areas, and raised a repair to the rear door of the building. It emailed the resident on 20 November 2020 and said it inspected the building on a monthly basis, and advised how he could report concerns and repairs.
The resident contacted the landlord to make a further complaint about its management of the communal areas on 23 July 2021. He expressed a concern about fly tipping, a repair to his shed door, the location of a gas pipe, and ongoing ASB in the communal areas. The resident sought to raise his complaint again on 24 August 2021. The landlord responded on 26 August 2021 and set out what it had done in relation to his concerns. It also set out repairs it planned to do in the communal areas, and encouraged the resident to report concerns about ASB in the communal areas to the police.
The resident continued to report concerns about repairs and the cleanliness of the communal areas in November and December 2021. The resident contacted the landlord on 15 February 2022 and raised a concern that it was not responding to the complaints he had raised. The landlord opened a complaint investigation and instructed its legal services team to conduct a ‘review’ of all aspects of the resident’s complaint. The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 March 2022 to acknowledge the resident’s complaint, said it would respond as a stage 2 complaint, and said it would be in touch once it had “agree[d] a deadline” for the investigation.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 18 July 2022 and said:
1. It set out its understanding of the complaint and listed the resident’s concerns about its management of the communal areas, cleaning, and repairs.
2. It set out its position in relation to the repairs, and said it would inspect the property to identify outstanding repairs. It offered the resident £350 in compensation for its handling of the communal door repairs.
3. It had investigated the resident’s concerns about staff conduct. It found no evidence it had acted “insidiously” or with “dishonesty”, as the resident had claimed. It said it had found no evidence of discrimination. It invited the resident to provide evidence he claimed to have, as he had not yet provided it.

Events after the complaints process

The resident contacted this Service on 26 July 2023 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He stated that the issue with ASB, repairs, and the shipping container was still outstanding. He also expressed a concern the landlord was not responding to his complaints.
The landlord completed repairs to the downpipes and guttering on 4 August 2022. It completed a further repair to the back gate on 1 September 2022.
The landlord emailed the resident on 4 April 2024 and set out its legal position in terms of the shipping container, and addressed the resident’s concerns about whether it altered the title deed and/or the lease.

Jurisdiction

The resident’s concern that the presence of a shipping container in the communal garden caused him a financial loss

After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern that the presence of a shipping container in the communal garden caused him a financial loss is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
Throughout the resident’s complaint, and when he brought his complaint to this Service, he raised a concern that the landlord’s handling of the shipping container issue caused him a financial loss. Paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where it is considered “quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”.
The evidence shows the resident was concerned that the presence of the shipping container meant multiple sales of his property fell through. He also raised a concern that the landlord had breached the lease, and altered the title deeds, without the appropriate permissions. This Service does not have the expertise to make a determination on such matters, and a determination on whether the landlord has breached the lease agreement, and whether this caused the resident a quantifiable financial loss, ultimately requires a decision by the courts. However, we have considered the landlord’s communication about the shipping container, and whether its approach was reasonable in the circumstances. Our findings on this aspect of the resident’s complaint are set out later in this report.

The resident’s reports of a data breach

After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a data breach is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In February 2022, the resident raised a concern with the landlord that it had caused a data breach by discussing the circumstances of someone with the same name as the resident. While the serious nature of this complaint is acknowledged, this is not a matter which the Ombudsman can consider. Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) investigates complaints about an organisation’s handling of personal data. The ICO is an independent body set up to uphold information rights. It has the power to investigate data breaches, to assess whether an organisation has failed to comply with the relevant data handling provisions, and to make orders aimed at putting things right. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, he can raise a complaint with the ICO on its website: Make a complaint | ICO.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Throughout the resident’s complaint he made a claim the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB, and the repairs at the property amounted to disability and class discrimination. In January 2022 he said the landlord had failed to comply with the Equality Act 2010, and he had experienced “discrimination and victimisation” based on his disability and class.
While the serious nature of this allegation is acknowledged, whether the landlord committed disability discrimination is a complaint which must, ultimately, be decided by a court of law. As such it is not within the remit of this investigation to consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint. He may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue this matter further. It is worth noting that we have considered the landlord’s response to his concerns about the conduct of its staff, and whether its approach was reasonable in the circumstances. What we have not done is make a determination on whether the landlord’s actions amounted to discrimination as defined by the Equality Act 2010.
In August 2020, the resident made a claim that the landlord’s failure to clear debris in the communal area caused him an injury. Throughout his complaint he also raised a concern that its overall handling of the issues he complained about had a negative impact on his mental health.
The serious nature of this concern is acknowledged, and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s claim. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
The resident’s complaint refers to the landlord’s handling of, and response to, the resident’s concerns raised in relation to the amount charged for services he paid for as part of his service charge. In particular, he was concerned about the quality of repair works, and cleaning, and felt he should not pay his service charge for these. It should be made clear that the Ombudsman cannot review complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent, or the increase of service charges or rent. This is in line our Scheme. However, we can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication with, and responses to, the resident were appropriate, fair, and reasonable.
Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the complainant would be advised to seek free and independent advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) ( https://www.lease-advice.org) in relation to how to proceed with a case, should he wish to do so.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 18 July 2022. This Service has received correspondence between the landlord and the resident about the complaint. The evidence shows that some of the substantive issues of the complaint remain outstanding. For fairness, this Service has increased the scope of the investigation beyond the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response.

Repairs to the communal areas of the property

The resident’s lease agreement states that the landlord is responsible keeping the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in good repair, including the provision to sanitation including guttering, and drains. The landlord’s leaseholder handbook also set out the same repair responsibilities, but does not give timeframes for repairs.
The landlord’s website states that it has 2 categories of responsive repair. For “emergency” repairs it says it will attend within 6 hours, and for “general” repairs it will attend within 30 days. It states that when parts are need, in exceptional cases, the 30 day timeframe may be exceeded.

Reports of repairs to communal door.

The evidence shows the landlord was on notice about the repair to the communal door from November 2020. It is not clear when the resident first raised the issue. But, notes from a landlord inspection on 4 November 2020 indicate it inspected that day and raised a follow on repair as the door needed “easing”. There is no evidence to indicate that the repair took place at that time, as there is no recorded outcome. This is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping, and its handling of the door repair. This caused the resident an inconvenience, as it did not attend to the repair within a reasonable timeframe.
It is concerning the matter appears to have remained outstanding for a significant period of time after it was on notice. This is evidenced by an email it sent to the resident on 26 August 2021, when it said it was addressing the “noise from the slamming door”, and would ask the relevant officer for an update. That it failed to acknowledge, or apologise, for the delay up to that point was unreasonable. The landlord offered no assessment of its handling of the matter up to that point. It is reasonable to conclude the lack of learning shown at that stage contributed to the further delays in completing the repair.
The evidence shows the landlord sent an internal email about the communal door on 15 December 2021. Again, the outcome of this request for a repair is unclear, which is a further failing in its record keeping, and its handling of the issue. The resident was evidently distressed at the noise disturbance he claimed to be experiencing from the door. The distress and inconvenience was increased by repeatedly having to raise the same repair, without the landlord taking the appropriate action.
The comments in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of July 2022, in relation to the door repair are of concern. The response set out that it had “assumed” the repair was done based on a “comment” that it appeared to have been completed satisfactorily. That the landlord relied on assumptions about repairs for its complaint response is evidence that its record keeping around the repairs was poor, and the complaint investigation lacked the appropriate thoroughness.
It is noted that the landlord accepted its handling of the door repair was poor, and offered £350 in compensation for its handling of the matter. However, it lacked learning about the issue, and stated it was unable to ascertain when the issue was first reported. This further supports the conclusion that its investigation of the matter lacked the appropriate thoroughness, as we have seen evidence showing it was reported in November 2020.
It is not possible to determine when the landlord completed the door repair, due to its poor record keeping. It is evident the repair was outstanding for an unreasonable period and the landlord did not complete the repair within its 30 day target timeframe. The resident was inconvenienced by the delay, and the inconvenience was increased by the fact he had to repeatedly raise the repair.

Reports of repairs to a shed

The landlord was on notice about a repair to the resident’s shed from 5 September 2020. We have seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord attend to this repair within the timeframes set out on its website. Internal emails, from March 2022, sent as part of the stage 2 complaint investigation state it inspected the shed on 14 May 2021, when delivering new keys. It stated there was “no concern” regarding the condition of the shed. While we have not seen evidence of notes from the inspection, only an email sent nearly a year later, it is reasonable to conclude it did inspect the shed at that time. However, this was 6 months after the resident first raised his concern, and an unreasonable delay.
The matter appeared to be outstanding when the landlord sent the resident a response about repairs on 26 August 2021, 11 months later. The resident had raised concerns again in July and August 2021 about the condition of the shed. That the landlord appears to have taken no action on this repair during this period was unreasonable and evidence it failed to adhere to its target repair timeframes. This caused the resident an inconvenience, as well as the time and trouble of having to repeatedly raise the same repair.
The resident sent the landlord an email on 15 November 2021, that stated its contractor had completed a repair on the shed door but had done a “shoddy” job. The landlord has not provided evidence that its contractor did complete said repair in the intervening period. Given that it did not dispute the resident’s claim, it is reasonable to conclude it did take place. That it has not provided evidence of the repair is a further failing in its record keeping. We have also seen no evidence that it followed up on the resident’s concerns when he raised them in November 2021.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of July 2022, cited that the resident’s concern about the shed door had “no merit”, was inappropriate. While reasonable to rely on its operative’s comments that there was “no concern” about the condition of the shed in May 2021, the resident continued to raise concerns in July, August, and November 2021. That it did not arrange a further inspection was unreasonable, and dismissive of the resident’s concerns. It is however noted that the landlord did complete an inspection of the shed in August 2022.

Repairs to the back gate

The evidence indicates that the landlord was on notice about the resident’s reports of a repair to the back gate (replacement lock) from August 2021. From the records provided it is not possible to determine what action the landlord took at the time. The matter remained outstanding at the time of the stage 2 complaint response, in July 2022. It is therefore reasonable to conclude the landlord did not take the appropriate action and inspect the gate at the time. This was a failing in its handling of the matter.
The comments in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response about the back gate were inappropriate. It set out that during its complaint investigation, it had not received a response to its enquiries. It also set out that it had “not addressed” the resident’s concerns, and said it would raise an inspection. But, its response lacked learning about why it had not addressed the matter. It is noted the landlord offered to refund the resident’s service charge in relation to this matter. The landlord admitted a failing in its handling of the matter, and did not show learning. It also failed to acknowledge the time and trouble the resident was cost in chasing it on the repair. Therefore, its offer to refund the service charge did not fully put things right.
Despite stating it would complete an inspection of the gate within 14 days of its complaint response. Evidence from an email it send the resident on 31 August 2022 shows it had not inspected the gate over a month after issuing its response. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter, and the resident was caused a disappointment of the landlord not doing something it said it would in its complaint response. It is noted that the landlord processed a refund of the resident’s service charge of £67.25, around this time. The evidence shows it completed repair to the back gate on 1 September 2022, which was 2 months after its final complaint response, and a further unreasonable delay.
In relation to other repairs raised throughout the complaints process, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was inappropriate. In terms of the balcony works it stated it was unable to obtain evidence of whether the guttering, or balcony works had been inspected. It was also unable to provide an appropriate assessment of its understanding of repairs to the communal flooring and door frames. This was a failing in its record keeping. This further supports the conclusion that its stage 2 complaint investigation lacked the appropriate thoroughness in relation to the repairs.
It is not possible to do determine if the lack of response to the enquiries was due to a lack of records, or simply a lack of response to its internal enquiries. What is clear, however, is that the landlord’s information management around the repairs, and its complaint investigation, was poor and caused the resident an inconvenience. It was unable to set out its position on the repairs and had to raise further inspections as part of the complaint response. This caused a further delay in attending to the repairs, which increased the detriment experienced by the resident.
The evidence shows the landlord completed the repairs to the guttering on 1 September 2022. This was 2 months after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, and outside of the timeframes it set out in its response. The further delay was unreasonable, and caused the resident an inconvenience.
As part of our investigation, we asked the landlord for evidence of the outcomes of its inspection of the communal flooring, and door frames. The landlord has not provided any evidence to indicate it inspected the communal flooring, and or door frames, or set out its position to the resident. Given its stage 2 complaint response was unable to set out its position on these repairs, that it did not revisit this, or conduct a specific inspection, was a further failing in its handling of the matter. Considering this, an appropriate order is set out below.
The landlord’s handling of the communal repairs was poor. There is evidence that it did not attend to repairs within a reasonable timeframe. Its records around the repairs were poor, which can reasonably be concluded to have contributed to the delays. At the time of its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord was unsure on the latest position of some of the repairs, and had to raise further inspections. Its complaint response, while giving a detailed account of the concerns raised, lacked the appropriate level of learning about its admitted failings.
After issuing its stage 2 response, it failed to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. It also failed to set out its position in relation to repairs it could not assess in its stage 2 response (due to a lack of available information), this was inappropriate and caused a further inconvenience.

Concerns about the cleanliness of the building, and fly tipping.

The evidence shows that the landlord was on notice about the issue when he sent an email on 14 May 2020. The landlord sent an internal email on the same day asking the relevant team to follow up on his concerns. This was appropriate. We have seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord took any action at that time, or followed up with the resident. This was unreasonable and a failing in its handling of the matter. This caused the resident an inconvenience as the landlord did not follow up on his concerns with the appropriate thoroughness.
The resident raised further concerns about fly tipping and the cleanliness of the block, in September 2020. The landlord sent all residents in the block a letter, on 30 September 2020, reminding them of their responsibilities to keep it clean and tidy. This was reasonable in the circumstances, and evidence it sought to address the resident’s concerns. However, there is no evidence it sought to visit the property at the time, to discuss his concerns directly or to inspect the reported conditions. This was unreasonable. Had it done so, it would have helped reassure the resident it was taking his concerns seriously.
The evidence shows the landlord met with the resident to discuss his concerns about the cleanliness of the block on 7 July 2021. Following that meeting the landlord completed a clean of the communal block on 17 August 2021. This was reasonable in the circumstances. That it did not meet with the resident to discuss his concerns on this matter for 10 months after it was first raised amounts to an unreasonable delay.
The landlord’s response to the resident on 26 August 2021 set out the actions it had taken in relation to fly tipping, and set out it had increased the frequency of inspections to 3 times per week. This was reasonable in the circumstances, considering the concerns the resident was reporting. We have seen evidence that the landlord attended promptly to a report of fly tipping around this time, which was also reasonable in the circumstances. Its position on the frequency of inspections caused confusion.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s position on the inspections of the block lacked clarity. It set out, in its response in August 2021, that it would inspect 3 time per week. However, the evidence it has provided shows it inspects the block on a monthly basis. While the evidence shows the inspections did happen on a monthly basis, that it did not inspect with the frequency set out as above was a shortcoming that caused confusion for the resident.
When acknowledging the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 10 March 2022, the landlord explained that it would not be appropriate to set out any tenancy enforcement action it had taken, or planned to take. This was in relation to other residents not keeping the communal areas clean and tidy. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
Its letter, of 10 March 2022, also set out that it planned to review the communal cleaning contract to ensure it provided a good service for customers. This was inappropriate, as the evidence shows that at the time there was no communal cleaning service at the block. The content of the landlord’s letter, of March 2022, caused confusion, and is evidence the landlord was unclear about what services it was and was not providing. This was poor knowledge and information management, which created confusion and caused the resident an inconvenience. It is noted that the landlord now provides a communal cleaning service at the block.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of July 2022, set out its position on the cleaning. It stated it was satisfied it had taken the appropriate action in relation to his concerns, and said it would send a further reminder letter to residents. While it was clear in its position, and the action it would take, the response lacked the appropriate learning about its handling of the matter.
The resident had been raising concerns about its handling of fly tipping and cleanliness of the communal area since May 2020. That it did not assess its handling of the matter to when it was first on notice lacked learning. The resident was inconvenienced by the fact it had not addressed his concerns with the appropriate thoroughness. The evidence shows the landlord sent further warning letters to the residents of the block in July 2022, which is evidence it took the actions it said it would in it stage 2 complaint response.
The stage 2 response was appropriate in terms of how it set out its position on bikes being left in the communal area. It explained the actions it had taken in order to establish what the resident had reported, and that it had no actionable evidence. While the resident was evidently frustrated by its approach, that it encouraged him to provide further evidence was appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about fly tipping, and cleanliness of the communal areas was poor. Its responses lacked clarity, and caused confusion. That it was unclear on what services it was providing caused a further inconvenience and can reasonably be concluded to have affected its response to the concerns. Its stage 2 complaint response lacked the appropriate learning, or any meaningful assessment of its handling of the matter dating back to when the resident first complained. As such we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter, and have made a series of orders below.

ASB in the communal areas of the property.

The landlord’s leaseholder’s handbook states that it is responsible for dealing with ASB experienced by leaseholders in its properties. The landlord’s ASB policy states that when a resident reports ASB it will interview the resident (by phone or in person) and agree a course of action. The policy states that it will confirm the agreed course of action in writing to the resident.
The Government’s ‘Putting Victims First’ guidance states that reported incidents of ASB should be “risk assessed at the earliest opportunity” to ensure an appropriate response. The Government’s ASB guidance for frontline professionals states that when an ASB case needs further actions, an action plan should be completed, and shared with the complainant.
It is evident that this situation was distressing for the resident. It is acknowledged that the resident does not believe that the landlord responded appropriately to his reports of ASB. The role of this Service is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring, or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations. This investigation has considered whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The evidence shows the resident first raised concerns about ASB in the communal areas in September 2020. There is no evidence to indicate that it opened an ASB case at the time, or sought to interview the resident. This was inappropriate and a failure to apply its ASB policy. The resident was inconvenienced by the landlord’s failure to appropriately apply its ASB policy.
The resident made a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB on 12 October 2020. The evidence indicates that the landlord failed to provide a response to the complaint. This was not only a failing in its complaint handling, but also in its handling of the reports of ASB. The landlord missed an opportunity to reflect on its handling of the matter up to that point, and try and put right its evident failings.
When the resident raised concerns about ASB in the communal areas again, in July 2021, there is no evidence to indicate that it opened an ASB case at the time, or sought to interview the resident. This was inappropriate and a failure to apply its ASB policy. The resident was evidently distressed by the reported ASB in the communal areas. The lack of any appropriate action, at the time, increased the distress the resident experienced. That it failed to open an ASB case twice, is evidence it was obstructive in its approach to the resident’s reports of ASB.
The resident continued to raise concerns, in August 2021. An email the landlord sent the resident on 13 August 2021 was dismissive of his concerns. While appropriate to signpost the resident to the police if he suspected criminal behaviour, its approach was inappropriate. Given what was reported by the resident, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to open an ASB case, and interview the resident. That it did not do so was unreasonable, and evidence it failed to apply its ASB policy appropriately. That the landlord was dismissive of his concerns increased the distress the resident experienced.
The landlord’s email of 26 August 2021 went some way to making up the shortcomings of its earlier response. It gave more clarity about its approach to ASB, the evidence it needed, and how the police could support the resident. However, it failed to set out what it could do to support the resident, and still did not open an ASB case. This was unreasonable, given what the resident was reporting.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of July 2022, accepted a failing that it had not followed up on the resident’s reports of ASB. It reflected about the lack of follow up, and offered redress which was appropriate. However, it did not show appropriate learning to set out how it would prevent similar failures happening again. This was inappropriate. It is noted that it set out that it would revisit the ASB case which was appropriate.
That the complaint response was sent a year after he raised concerns about its handling of reported ASB increased the distress and inconvenience he experienced by its handling of the matter. The landlord’s complaint handling is assessed in more detail below, but it is apparent the delays in responding to the complaint increased the detriment experienced by the resident in its handling of the ASB case.
The evidence shows the landlord wrote to the resident on 21 July 2022, and asked him to provide a “full account” of the incidents he was concerned about. That it sought to revisit the issue was appropriate. However, that it did not seek to interview the resident at the time, as set out in its policy, was a further failing in its handling of the matter.
There is also no evidence to indicate the landlord conducted a risk assessment or did an ASB action plan, in line with accepted best practice. Considering the vulnerability of the resident, and the seriousness of the allegations, this was inappropriate. This caused the resident an inconvenience as he was left not knowing the actions the landlord planned to take in his case, and was not given formal advice about steps he could take. Its approach was dismissive of the resident’s concerns, and failed to give the appropriate support for his case.
This Service welcomes the fact the landlord offered the resident compensation to try and put right its admitting failings. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord took the appropriate action, even after it identified failings in its approach. That it failed to learn from the outcomes of its handling of the case is evident, as such we have determined that there was maladministration in its handling of the matter. Considering the amount of compensation the landlord offered, we have not made an order for further compensation to be paid for its handling of this matter.

Reports of ASB from a neighbour

As set out above, the role of this Service is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring, or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations.
The evidence shows the resident first reported concerns about ASB from his neighbour on 20 September 2020. It is apparent that the landlord supplied the resident with logs to complete, which was reasonable. However, the landlord has provided no evidence to indicate that it completed an action plan, or risk assessment, in relation to the reported ASB. Given what was reported by the resident, that he had experienced “hate crime” and “abuse”, this is concerning. The resident was evidently distressed by what he was reporting. That the landlord did not apply its ASB policy or seek to appropriately support the resident, increased the distress he experienced.
The evidence shows that the landlord told the resident, in an email on 9 October 2020, that it had discussed the resident’s concerns with the police. While we do not seek to dispute the landlord’s claim, it has not provided evidence that it did so. This is a failing in its records keeping and it is not possible to corroborate its claim. Had the landlord opened an ASB case, and produced an action plan in line with its policy, it would have been able to formally set out the actions it had taken. This would have helped build trust with the resident, and reassure him it was taking his concerns seriously. That it did not was a failing in its handling of the ASB case.
As set out above, the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s complaint, of October 2020, was a failing. Its failure to address his concerns about its handling of his reports of ASB increased the detriment he experienced. He was evidently distressed about the ASB he was reporting, and frustrated and the landlord’s handling of it. That it failed to respond to his complaint increased that frustration, and lacked learning.
The evidence shows that the landlord interviewed the alleged perpetrator of ASB on 21 October 2020. This was appropriate in the circumstances and in line with the approach set out in its ASB policy. There is no evidence it followed up with the resident afterwards, or explained any further actions it planned to take. This was unreasonable. The resident experienced the inconvenience of not knowing what, if any, actions the landlord planned to take in his case.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of July 2022, was silent on the resident’s concerns about his concerns of ASB from his neighbour. This was inappropriate, and a further failure to address his concerns as part of a formal complaint response. The resident was concerned that his landlord was not taking his reports of ASB seriously. Its failure to address his concerns as part of its complaint response did little to build trust with him. While it is noted the landlord offered £825 in compensation for its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, its failure to address the specific concerns about his neighbour was unreasonable. We have therefore determined that its offer of redress for its handling of the ASB did not contribute towards putting things right for this specific concern.
The evidence shows that the resident sought to raise a further concern about experiencing ASB from his neighbour in September 2023. Again, there is no evidence the landlord appropriately applied its ASB policy by opening a case, completing an action plan, or doing a risk assessment in line with accepted best practice. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter that increased the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced. Considering its failure to open an ASB case, we have made an order for the landlord to meet with the resident to discuss his concerns about ASB.
The landlord failed to apply its ASB case appropriately, and it is particularly concerning that it did so when the resident reported “hate crime” and “abuse”. It was dismissive of the resident’s concerns and there is evidence it did not open ASB cases when the resident sought to do so. Its failure to address the specific concern about ASB from his neighbour in its complaint response was unreasonable. We have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from a neighbour.

Concern about a shipping container in the communal garden of the property

The resident’s lease agreement sets out that he is entitled to use the use the “forecourt lawns and gardens” for the purposes of recreation.
It is not within the scope of this investigation to make a determination on whether the shipping container was legally allowed to be in the communal garden. Nor is it within the scope of this investigation to determine whether the landlord breached the lease agreement by allowing it to be there. The resident’s concern about this matter is noted. However, a determination about the legality of the landlord’s actions, and the alleged breach of lease, is a matter where a court is best placed to make a decision. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter, he may wish to seek independent legal advice. We have, however, considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns, its communication, and whether its actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
The evidence shows that the resident first raised a concern about the shipping container on 21 July 2020. We have seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord responded to his concern, or outlined its position at the time. This was a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident was evidently distressed at the presence of the shipping container, and concerned about the impact it may of on the sale of his property. That the landlord failed to provide an appropriate response, increased that distress.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with a response on its formal position with regards to the shipping container during the period of the resident’s complaint. This was unreasonable and evidence its approach to his concerns was dismissive.
Evidence seen for this investigation indicates that the landlord’s record keeping around the shipping container issue was poor. When the officer investigating the complaint sought to gain more information about it, in March 2022, the response from the relevant team stated it “was not aware” if permission was granted. This is a failing in its handling of the matter and evidence its poor record keeping impacted on its ability to provide the resident with a clear response to his query.
The resident waited 2 years to get a formal response from the landlord, in relation to the shipping container issue. He was evidently distressed by the matter, and stated the distress and frustration that the situation caused had impacted on his mental health. We do not seek to make a determination of causation in relation to the resident’s mental health. However, the evidence shows that the landlord did not have due consideration for the resident’s vulnerability, his individual circumstances, and the impact the situation was having on him. This was inappropriate.
When the landlord did issue its stage 2 complaint response, it lacked detail on the issue, offered no assessment of its handling of it up to that point, and did not set out its formal position. This was unreasonable and particularly concerning considering it had been investigating the complaint for 4 months, and had been on notice about the matter for 2 years. The lack of an appropriate response increased the distress the resident experienced.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response accepted the resident had use of the garden, in line with his lease. It is therefore concerning that it did not seek to set out its position on the shipping container. We have seen evidence, an email from the resident’s solicitor from August 2020, that the presence of the shipping container was impacting on his ability to sell the property. This was evidently distressing for the resident. We do not seek to make a determination of causation in relation to the shipping container and whether it impacted on the resident’s ability to sell his property. However, we have referenced the email from the resident’s solicitor as evidence of the distress the resident experienced, and how the landlord’s lack of communication on the issue contributed to that distress.
As set out above, we do not seek to make a determination on whether the landlord was legally entitled to allow someone to place the shipping container in the communal garden. That the resident raised a concern in July 2020, and did not receive a formal, detailed, response until April 2024, nearly 4 years later, was unreasonable. The delay in setting out its position not only increased the resident’s distress, but it impacted on his ability to pursue a legal challenge as he was left unaware of the landlord’s position on the matter. As such, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter and have set out a series of orders below.

Concern about the conduct of its staff.

The landlord’s complaint policy states that if it receives a complaint about the conduct of its staff, it will investigate the complaint as a corporate complaint, and in conjunction with its disciplinary procedure.
The serious nature of the resident’s concern that the landlord discriminated against him is acknowledged, and we did not seek to dispute his claim. However, as set out above, it is not within the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether the landlord’s actions amounted to discrimination. Instead, this investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns, and whether its approach was reasonable in the circumstances.
The evidence shows that the resident first raised concern that the landlord operated a culture of “discrimination” and “victimisation” in July 2021. As with other aspects of the resident’s complaint, the fact the landlord did not open a complaint investigation at the time meant it did not investigate his concerns within a reasonable timeframe, which caused an inconvenience.
When the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response, a year later, it set out what it had done to investigate his concerns. The landlord clearly set out its position that on the evidence it had available it had found no evidence of misconduct or discrimination. Despite an unreasonable delay in investigating his concerns, its response shows it took the resident’s concerns seriously. That it encouraged the resident to provide evidence, he claimed he had (call recordings), is evidence it took a supportive approach. We have seen no evidence to indicate the resident supplied it with further evidence.
The landlord’s complaint response, of July 2022, set out that it had considered email correspondence when investigating his concerns. While this was an appropriate course of action, we have seen no evidence the landlord sought to interview any members of staff about the alleged misconduct. This was a shortcoming in its response, and evidence its investigation the matter lacked the appropriate thoroughness. Given the resident had raised concerns about specific members of staff and their handling of his case, it is unclear why the landlord did not adopt such an approach.
Despite clearly setting out its position in its stage 2 complaint response, the resident waited an unreasonable time for the landlord to formally address his concerns. That it thoroughly considered the evidence it had available, and encouraged the resident to provide further evidence, was appropriate. There was a shortcoming in its investigation of the resident’s claims. This, and the unreasonable delay have led to a finding of maladministration in its handling of the matter.

Complaint Handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. At the time of the resident’s complaint its policy stated it would send stage 1 response within 20 working days, and stage 2 responses within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time stated it may take a resident’s complaint straight to stage 2 if the chief executive deemed it appropriate. The policy stated it would explain its reasons for doing so to the resident.
The resident first expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the matter in this complaint in May 2020. That the landlord did not open a complaint at that time was unreasonable, and a failing in its complaint handling. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made. That it did not open a complaint investigation at that time is evidence the landlord operated an unfair and hard to access complaints process. This inconvenienced the resident, and he was cost further time and trouble in needing to repeatedly ask it to open a complaint
The resident sought to raise a further complaint in October 2020, and there is no evidence it opened a complaint investigation at the time. This was a further failing in its complaint handling that caused the resident an inconvenience. The resident was cost further time and trouble by raising the same matters again in November 2020. The landlord said it would respond to his complaint within 10 working days, there is no evidence it did so. This caused a further detriment to the resident of not having his complaint answered within a reasonable timeframe, and a disappointment of the landlord not doing something it said it would.
The landlord sent the resident an email on 20 November 2020 stating it was awaiting a response from a “senior manager” on the complaint. There is no evidence it followed this up with the resident, or that it issued a stage 1 complaint response around this time. This is a further failing in the landlord’s complaint handling and evidence it operated an obstructive, and protracted, complaints process.
The resident made a further complaint in July 2021 and, again, did not receive a formal response. He raised the same complaint again in August 2021. The landlord responded to the resident on the same day (24 August 2021) setting out its position on the substantive issue of the complaint. However, there is no evidence that the response stated it was a complaint response, or advised the resident how he could take his complaint to the next stage. This was a failure to properly apply the Code, which states a complaint response must set out what stage the resident’s complaint is at, and how the complaint can be escalated.
That its response in August 2021 did not outline whether it was a complaint response, or provide advice on how the resident could take his complaint to the next stage was a further failing in its complaint handling. The resident was left not knowing if the landlord’s response was formal complaint response, or how he could take his complaint further if he remained dissatisfied. This caused an inconvenience.
The resident made further complaints in November and December 2021. Again, there is no evidence the landlord opened a complaint investigation at the time. This was a further failing in its complaint handling that increased the inconvenience the resident had experienced up to that point. This is further evidence that the landlord operated an obstructive complaints process that was hard to access for the resident.
The landlord decided to open a complaint investigation on receipt of the resident’s complaint of 15 February 2022, this was appropriate. However, the landlord it did not formally acknowledge the complaint until 10 March 2022, nearly a month later, this was unreasonable. The Code states that landlord must acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days of receipt. That it did not do so was a further failing in its complaint handling. The unreasonable delay caused a further inconvenience in what was already a protracted complaints process for the resident.
An internal email, from 16 February 2022, states the landlord was “unclear” whether it had responded to the complaint in November 2021. This is evidence the landlord’s information management around the complaints was poor. It is reasonable to conclude its poor record keeping around the resident’s complaints contributed to its overall poor handling of his complaints.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint acknowledgment was inappropriate. It said it would “agree a deadline” internally and then tell the resident when it would respond by. This was inappropriate and not it line with the approach mandated by the Code. The Code states stage 2 complaint responses should be sent within 20 working days, and extensions to this deadline should be agreed with the resident. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord adopted such an approach. The stage 2 complaint investigation was open ended which was unfair on the resident and caused a further inconvenience.
While it is noted the landlord decided to take the complaint straight to stage 2, as its policy allows, this was not in line with the approach mandated by the Code. The Code states landlord’s “must only escalate a complaint to stage 2 once it has completed stage 1 and at the request of the resident.” By not providing a stage 1 response and only issuing a stage 2 response, it removed a valuable step. This deprived the resident of the right to respond, resulting effectively in a 1 stage internal complaints procedure. This was not appropriate. This was a failure to apply the principals set out in the Code.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response 104 working days after the resident made his complaint in February 2022. This was a significant delay, and well outside of the timeframe set out in its policy and the Code. In fact, its complaint response was sent over 2 years after the resident first tried to complaint about some of the issues in his complaint. That the resident was waiting over 2 years for a formal response to some of his concerns is a significant complaint handling failing. The resident was inconvenienced by this and was cost time and trouble in needing to repeatedly make complaints before receiving a response.
As outlined throughout this report, the landlord’s complaint handling delays evidently impacted on its handling of the substantive issues in the complaint. This is because in relation to some matters such as the shipping container, some repairs, concerns about staff conduct, it had not responded in any meaningful way until it issued its response. The detriment caused by the complaint handling delays was increased because the resident had to wait an unreasonable amount of time to get a formal response. The evidence shows that landlord did not take actions on some issues until after it issued its final response. Therefore, the unreasonable delay in responding to the complaints contributed to the delays in the landlord taking action on the substantive issues in this case.
That the landlord did not acknowledge or assess its complaint handling in its response was inappropriate. Given the evident complaint handling failings, and the long delay in the resident getting a response to his complaints, this was unreasonable. This caused the resident a further inconvenience. The resident was evidently frustrated at the need to repeatedly raise complaints with the landlord. That it failed to show learning about its complaint handling was unreasonable, and it missed an opportunity to reflect on its complaint handling, show learning, and build trust with the resident.
The evidence shows the resident made complaints on at least 5 occasions, throughout 2020 and 2021, without the landlord sending a formal complaint response. This was inappropriate and caused a significant inconvenience. When the landlord did open a stage 2 complaint investigation, it took 4 months to complete. This was an unreasonable delay which caused a further inconvenience. The evidence shows that the landlord had not responded at all to some of the resident’s concerns, which is evidence its poor complaint handling increased the detriment the resident experienced.
The resident experienced a significant inconvenience of waiting 2 years to get a complaint response. Its final response lacked learning about the evident complaint handling failings. Considering the length of the delays, and the impact of its poor complaint handling on the substantive issues, we have determined there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It is of significant concern that the landlord’s approach to its handling of the complaint had an impact on its handling of the substantive issue, and increased the detriment to the resident. Considering the significant complaint handling failings in this case, there are a series of orders set out below.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory version of the Code. This Code sets out the standards landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024.
The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met.
In this investigation, we found failures in the landlord’s complaint handling policy. We have therefore referred this to our team responsible for monitoring compliance with the Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the communal areas of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the cleanliness of the building, and fly tipping.
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 the communal areas of the property.
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 from a neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a shipping container in the communal garden of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff.
In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern that a shipping container in the communal garden caused him a financial loss is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a data breach is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Instruct its chief executive officer to apologise to the resident, in person, for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £2,475 in compensation. The landlord should deduct the £1,242.25 it offered, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £600 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the communal areas of the property.
  2. £175 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about the cleanliness of the building, and fly tipping.
  3. £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from a neighbour.
  4. £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the shipping container issue.
  5. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concern about the conduct of its staff.
  6. £800 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. Instruct a senior manager to meet with the resident at the property to discuss his concerns about outstanding repairs it is responsible for. It must include an inspection of the communal flooring, and agree an action plan about outstanding repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to:

Considering the failings identified in this report, instruct a senior manager to conduct review into its handling of the communal repairs including how it can reduce the risk of similar failings happening again. The review should consider:
1. Following up on reports of repairs, and booking repairs in a timely manner.
2. The recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
Considering the complaint handling failings identified in this report, conduct a review into its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The review should consider its handling of the ASB case, and consider how it can prevent similar failings happening again. The review should consider accepted best practice for ASB cases, and its own ASB policy.
Considering the complaint handling failings identified in this report, conduct a review into its handling of the complaint, and how it can prevent similar failings happening again. The review should consider:
1. Its failure to open formal complaints when the resident complained.
2. The lack of learning shown in its complaint response.
3. The complaint handling principles set out in the Code.
The outcome of the reviews should be shared with this Service, also within 8 weeks.