Women’s Pioneer Housing Limited (202112905)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112905

Women’s Pioneer Housing Limited

20 September 2023

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 response to:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour involving the resident’s upstairs neighbour.
2. Reports of repairs to the boiler and a request to relocate the boiler.
3. The resident’s request for the boiler and gas meter to be boxed in.

Background

The property is a studio flat on the first floor of a converted house, containing 8 flats.
The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, that commenced on 28 April 2015. Prior to this she held a starter tenancy from 12 August 2013 at the same address.
In part 3 of the tenancy agreement, headed “your duties”, the agreement establishes expectations that the resident must not cause a nuisance, harassment or give rise to complaints being made against them (point 18, 19 and 20).
The tenancy agreement provides detail as to the repairing responsibilities of both the landlord and the resident, under the sections headed “our duties” (point 3) and “your duties” (point 7).

Landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures

Complaint’s procedure

The landlord had a 2 stage complaint’s procedure in place at the time of the resident’s complaint.
At stage 1 the complaint was to be investigated by a relevant director with a formal response to be provided within 10 working days. If more time was required for the investigation, the landlord may agree an extension with the resident of a further 10 working days.
If the issues were not resolved the complaint may be escalated. Stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure provided two avenues for considering a complaint.
1. Referral to a director to review the stage 1 and issue a final response which would conclude the landlord’s internal process.
2. Referral for consideration by a complaints panel. The complaints panel would be made up of the chief executive, a board member and a member of the landlord’s resident engagement and scrutiny panel. The procedure stated that a case would generally be referred to the complaints panel where it potentially raises significant issues about service delivery and where either the original complaint was not upheld, or the complaint was upheld but the resident was unhappy with the redress offered.
The complaints panel aimed to meet within 5 weeks of receiving the stage 2 complaint from the resident, and 10 days’ notice of the meeting would be given to the resident. After the meeting a formal response was to be provided within 20 working days. As at stage 1 an extension of a further 10 working days may be agreed with the resident.
The landlord revised its complaint’s policy and procedure in September 2022 removing the need for a complaints panel and bringing it into line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.

Antisocial behaviour policy and procedure

The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy sets out its purpose to:
1. Minimise occurrences of antisocial behaviour
2. Ensure swift, impartial and fact driven investigations into antisocial behaviour cases.
3. Manage expectations of complainants
4. Deliver a clear approach to closing a case.
Under section 2 of its antisocial behaviour procedure, the landlord provides examples of what it would consider as antisocial behaviour. This includes:
1. Vandalism
2. Discrimination or harassment.
3. Aggravated noise.
4. Taking drugs or drinking alcohol in the shared areas of a building.
It further advises that “behaviour that results from different lifestyles and/or would not be considered unreasonable by most people is not antisocial behaviour.” This includes the following examples:
1. Normal domestic noise like doors banging, or washing machines and vacuum cleaners (in reasonable hours)
2. Personal dislikes/arguments on non-housing matters
3. Leaving or dropping rubbish
The procedure sets out the actions that should be taken by the landlord’s staff in dealing with complaints of antisocial behaviour and how these will be recorded on the landlord’s internal systems. The procedure includes timeframes for interviewing the complainant and the perpetrator, agreement of an action plan with and guidance on managing the expectations of the complainant.

Responsive repairs policy

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets the following repair response times:
1. Emergency repairs should be responded to within 12 hours.
2. Urgent repairs: those defined as a repair that materially affects the comfort or convenience of the resident, to be responded to within 7 days.
3. Routine, everyday repairs will be attended within 28 calendar days. “Such repairs do not pose a health and safety risk, and most should be completed first time.” It is noted that there may be occasions where an inspection appointment is needed first to determine the extent of works required.
Its policy further sets out the landlord’s repairs and maintenance responsibilities as follows:
1. To keep in repair the structure and exterior of all dwellings and common areas.
2. To keep in repair and correct working order, installations for the supply of gas, electricity, water, sanitation, and heating systems.
3. To keep in repair and working order communal facilities, for example lifts and communal lighting.
4. To comply with all health and safety requirements. This covers gas, electrical, fire safety, asbestos, and water safety.

Summary of events

Reports of antisocial behaviour

On 17 June 2021, the resident reported that her upstairs neighbour had put plants on their windowsill, which she believed was a health and safety risk. The landlord wrote directly to the neighbour the same day to ask that the pots be removed. This was followed up with a visit to the property on 30 June 2021.
On 27 July 2021, the resident reported that she had called the police following sounds of an altercation in her upstairs neighbour’s flat. She further reported that on the same day, a member of her neighbour’s household had been verbally abusive towards her.
Between 28 July 2021 and 21 September 2021, the resident reported the following incidents to her landlord. She said that:
1. Her neighbour had replaced the plants on her windowsill.
2. She had thrown food and a pink liquid out of the window to the ground below.
3. Her neighbour had jumped up and down within her flat and had tampered with her shower, which had caused it to create a loud vacuum noise when used, which was disturbing to her, particularly at night.
4. A member of her neighbour’s household had been verbally abusive, made rude gestures towards another resident and had taken photographs of her.
In response the landlord visited the building on 30 July 2021 and spoke with the resident’s neighbour. It also provided the resident with diary sheets to capture any future incidents. A letter was sent to all residents on 6 August 2021 instructing them to remove plant pots from windowsills and advising that these were a potential health and safety hazard.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 21 September 2021. In this she raised issues regarding the behaviour of her upstairs neighbour and members of their household. She also complained about the investigation carried out by the landlord into these incidents, stating that there had been a lack of urgency. She referred to the following incidents:
1. On 27 July 2021, police were called to her neighbour’s flat and forced entry to her neighbour’s home when she had refused to open the door. The resident advised that her neighbour had claimed to the police that she had killed her daughter.
2. On the same day, a member of her neighbour’s household had been verbally abusive towards her.
3. Her neighbour had taken pictures of her and her visitors.
4. The neighbour had continued to leave plants outside their window despite being warned not to by the landlord.
5. Items had been thrown from the window, including food and an unknown liquid.
6. An allegation that the upstairs neighbour had made false claims to the landlord, including that she needed a carer to live with her, which she believed was untrue.
The landlord provided a formal response to the resident’s complaint on 5 October 2021. In this it said:
1. On receiving reports of the incident that took place on 27 July 2021, it had contacted all residents in the building arranging to meet with them individually to discuss the incident and obtain each resident’s version of what had happened. This was in line with its antisocial behaviour policy and procedure.
2. It had limited records of the visits carried out by its officer and there appeared to have been no follow up with individual residents. It had a record that it had spoken with the police, but no written communication had followed, and it had no record of the outcome of this contact. Its officer had also failed to complete the investigation pack which was included within its procedure to ensure that it had all the details and facts of a case.
3. That “in investigating her complaint and the action it had taken in response to her reports of antisocial behaviour” it had not followed its policy and procedure.” It said that it could have acted quicker and been more thorough in its investigation.
4. In line with its policy and procedure a warning letter had been sent to her neighbour on 23 September 2021. A letter had also been sent to the resident informing her of the steps it had taken and when it would follow up with her again.
5. Her complaint said that her neighbour had pot plants on her windowsill. Its records showed that it had followed up each of her reports on this issue, either by writing to her neighbour or by visiting the property. It confirmed that the neighbour had been told that no pot plants or other items should be stored on the windowsill. This had been reinforced within the letter sent on 23 September 2021.
6. It could not provide information about or discuss another resident’s care and support needs.
7. It apologised that she had needed to raise a complaint and for the distress and upset that this had caused her. It offered her compensation of £50 for the inconvenience and distress caused.
Between 8 October 2021 and 29 November 2021, the resident reported further incidents which included:
1. Her neighbour’s visitor pushing her on the stairs and attendance by the police.
2. Her neighbour shouting at her, calling her names.
3. Food being thrown out of the window.
4. Her bike having been tampered with, which she believed had been done by her neighbour, and had led to her having an accident. She had reported this to the police.
5. That she believed her neighbour had tampered with her post.
The landlord contacted the resident on 8 October 2021 following her report of an altercation with a member of her neighbour’s household and its records show that an offer of mediation was made. The landlord separately contacted the police and made an “information sharing request” on 20 October 2021.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 October 2021 asking for her complaint to be escalated.
1. She confirmed that she would accept the offer of compensation made at stage 1.
2. She said that the antisocial behaviour from her neighbour had continued, and she wanted to know what was happening with the investigation.
3. She described an incident that had occurred on 8 October 2021, when on returning to her flat she had been pushed by a member of her neighbour’s household on the stairs into the building. Her neighbour had then been verbally challenging and abusive towards her. She stated that she did not feel safe within the property due to their behaviour and said, “I will not be subjected to any form of bullying, discrimination, racism, or harassment.”
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s letter on 13 October 2021 and said that, in line with its complaints policy, it would arrange a stage 2 panel meeting. It had additionally passed her letter to its housing team to investigate her reports of antisocial behaviour.
On 2 November 2021 the police notified the landlord that they had received reports from the resident that her bike had been tampered with. As there were no witnesses to this, it was unable to take further action.
The complaints panel met with the resident on 1 December 2021. It explained that it was there to listen to the issues. It would then issue a decision within 20 working days of the panel meeting.
At the panel meeting the resident raised the following instances of antisocial behaviour:
1. She believed that her neighbour had tampered with her post, putting letters into the recycling bin.
2. That she believed that they had tampered with her bike.
3. That her electricity meter had been tampered with. She said that she could not prove who had done this.
4. That her neighbour had thrown food and poured substances out of the window.
5. That on 27 July 2021 her neighbour’s visitor had been verbally abusive towards her.
She told the panel that:
1. She felt that it had failed to act effectively.
2. There was a lack of consistency and poor communication in its handling of the issues she had raised.
3. CCTV should be installed in the building.
The panel acknowledged that:
1. It had not investigated as quickly as it should have and explained that it now wanted to put things right.
2. It agreed that the housing team would interview both the resident and her neighbour.
3. It would also ensure that there was clearer communication in relation to its findings and the action to be taken.
4. It said that it would consult with residents and look to the possibility of installing CCTV into the building.
On 2 December 2021, the resident reported that her neighbour was using the communal electricity to supply her flat, having plugged an extension lead into a socket in the communal hallway. She further reported that a parcel that had been delivered for her had gone missing. She had reported this to the police. The landlord was later advised that the resident had been arrested.
On 3 December 2021 a member of the landlord’s staff returned the resident’s parcel to her. The landlord explained that this had been taken in by one of its contractors working in an empty flat within the building and they had mistakenly left the parcel in the flat. It apologised for the inconvenience this had caused.
On 5 December the resident wrote to her landlord raising the following issues:
1. She questioned why one of the landlord’s contractors had taken her parcel.
2. She blamed the landlord for her arrest and the issues she was experiencing with her upstairs neighbour.
3. She raised concerns about her upstairs neighbour using the communal electricity and the potential fire risk that this presented.
4. She said that her partner had been subjected to racist abuse by her neighbour and that the police had been involved in an incident on 3 December 2021.
5. She asked the landlord not to send her letters due to her concerns around her post.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 December 2021 setting out the outcome of its investigations into her reports of antisocial behaviour. It set out the action that it had taken in respect to each of her complaints and acknowledged that there had been delays in its earlier investigations. In summary it said:
1. A warning letter had been sent to her neighbour. This referred to breaches of her tenancy agreement, where the landlord had investigated and found evidence that they had acted in an antisocial manner, and that they had used the communal electricity.
2. Enforcement action may be taken if there were further breaches of the tenancy agreement. It had also sought the disclosure of information from the police regarding incidents it had attended in the building.
3. The resident should complete enclosed diary sheet if there were any further incidents. It further advised that “if there is anything serious or you feel threatened in anyway, please do not approach your neighbours under any circumstances. You must contact the police and note it in the diary.”
A formal stage 2 response was sent to the resident on 23 December 2021. This letter included the details the resident had provided to the landlord in her letter of 5 December 2021. In this the landlord:
1. Thanked the resident for meeting with the panel and providing a firsthand account of the issues.
2. Set out the detail of the resident’s complaint against her neighbour.
3. Agreed with the findings of the Stage 1 investigation that it had not followed its own policy and procedures through its initial investigation of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
4. Noted that there had been periods of delay and that warning letters had not been sent promptly following reports of antisocial behaviour.
5. Confirmed that since the panel meeting a full investigation had been carried out into the allegations and it had concluded that her neighbour had acted in an antisocial manner and had used the communal electricity. A warning letter has been sent to her neighbour. The panel felt that this investigation had been thorough, and all reasonable steps had been taken.
6. The panel noted that there was also an ongoing investigation into antisocial behaviour allegations made about the resident. It confirmed the advice set out in its letter of 16 December 2021 that the resident should not approach her neighbours.
7. It recommended further compensation of £100, in addition to the £50 awarded at stage 1 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failures during the initial antisocial behaviour investigation. It offered its sincere apologies for the service failings that had occurred.
8. To follow up on the issues discussed and to seek to put things right it said it would undertake the following:
  1. An assessment of the feasibility of installing postal lockers at the building. In the interim a record was to be made on the resident’s file that all communication from the landlord should be sent via email.
  2. An adjustment would be made to the service charge for the building to compensate residents for the communal electricity used by her neighbour. It reconfirmed that the neighbour has been warned that this was a breach of tenancy.
  3. Consultation would be carried out with residents about the installation of CCTV in the communal areas of the building.
  4. All staff in its housing team would receive further training on how to respond to antisocial behaviour allegations.
The resident contacted this service on 24 December 2021 to advise that she remained unhappy with the actions taken by the landlord and that she wanted her complaint to be investigated further as she felt that it had failed to adequately address the incidents, she had reported involving her neighbour.

Post internal complaints procedure

The resident reported further incidents involving her upstairs neighbour following the conclusion of the landlord’s complaints procedure. These included a report that on 6 January 2022 her neighbour pushed her up the stairs and that on two separate occasions that they had caused damage to her doorbell.
On 17 January 2022, the landlord sent the resident an antisocial behaviour warning letter. This followed the conclusion of its investigation into complaints about her behaviour made by her neighbour. This stated that the landlord had been provided with recordings which showed the resident shouting at her neighbours in the communal hallway.
On 15 February 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to request that she restrict her contact with it. In its letter it said that she had breached its unacceptable behaviour policy and provided details of her contact with it between 21 December 2021 and 2 February 2022, which it said had placed an unreasonable demand on its service. It said that it was restricting the resident’s contact to enable it to manage both her needs and that of its overall service. It said that it would only respond to her emails once every 10 days. It confirmed that she could still call to raise essential repairs and discuss urgent tenancy issues. It said that the restricted contact arrangement would be in place for a period of 3 months.
The resident made contact with her MP on 18 February 2022, who contacted the landlord on her behalf.
The landlord confirmed on 23 February 2022 that it was investigating the resident’s reports of damage to her doorbell and were in contact with the police on this matter.
The landlord also confirmed that it was investigating concerns that the resident of the upstairs flat was no longer living in the property. The landlord has confirmed to this service that it took possession of the property in December 2022.
The landlord shared with this service a stage 2 outcome letter sent to the resident on 11 August 2023. This covered fresh complaints raised by the resident that are outside of the scope of this investigation. It is however relevant to note that as an outcome to this complaint the landlord had agreed to the installation of individual post boxes for each resident.

Repairs to the boiler and a request for the boiler to be moved to a lower position

On 3 August 2021, the landlord’s contractor attended the property to repair a leaking extractor fan. A repair unrelated to the boiler. The contractor provided feedback to the landlord that the boiler was too high, and that the resident was unable to reach the controls. It recommended that the boiler be moved. This was referred internally to the landlord’s compliance team.
The landlord raised an order for a specialist heating contractor to attend to assess if the boiler could be relocated to make the controls more accessible to the resident.
On 31 August 2021, the resident reported a leak from her boiler and that she had no heating. A heating contractor attended to undertake a repair on the same day. The contractor identified an issue with the condense pipework and cleared a blockage. It reported that the condense pipework was linked to the rainwater downpipe which may need cleaning out by a drainage contractor.
On 2 September 2021, the resident reported that the boiler was still not working correctly and there had been a further leak. Based on its contractor’s earlier feedback, the landlord raised a follow up repair to the appropriate plumbing contractor for a plumber to attend.
The resident completed a stage 1 complaint form on 21 September 2021. In this she complained that her boiler had not been changed. She said that she had reported that her boiler was leaking and had taken pictures and videos as proof. She said that an engineer had also reported the issue to the landlord and did not feel that this had been taken seriously. She expressed her wish that the boiler be changed as soon as possible.
The heating contractor provided feedback to the landlord on 23 September 2021 regarding the position of the boiler. It said that it would not be cost effective to remove and reposition the boiler, specifically given its age. It recommended that the landlord consider fitting a remote time switch and room thermostat to assist the resident in controlling her boiler. An order for these works was raised by the landlord on 28 September 2021.
The resident chased the repair to her boiler on 29 September 2021. She advised the landlord that its heating contractor had told her not to use the boiler and reported that it was making a “boiling” noise. An appointment for a plumber to attend was booked with the resident for 30 September 2021.
As arranged the plumber attended on 30 September 2021 and found the condensing pipe to be blocked and that the boiler had “locked” as a result. It cleared the blockage and reinstated the boiler, advising the resident to call should the problem reoccur. The contractor also reported back to the landlord that the boiler could not be moved due to the location of the gas meter.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 September 2021, confirming that the repair to her boiler had been completed and it was working okay. She further told the landlord that she did not want the remote time switch or for her room thermostat to be changed. The landlord cancelled the relevant works order with its heating contractor.
On 5 October 2023, the landlord provided a response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. On the issue of the boiler, it said that:
1. It had advised the resident on 31 August 2021 that it was arranging for an initial inspection to be carried out to assess the feasibility of relocating the boiler.
2. The feedback it had received was that it would be prohibitively costly to relocate the boiler and would be on a par with fitting a new boiler. As her boiler was in working order it could not reasonably fund a replacement.
3. It had accepted the heating contractor’s recommendation and quote to provide a remote timer and room thermostat. This was to provide an easier means to control the boiler. An order had been raised for these works to be carried out.
4. It acknowledged that the resident had said she did not want the remote timer to be installed and that it had cancelled the works order raised. It continued to recommend these works, confirming that it could neither move nor replace the boiler at that time.
5. The resident had reported a leak to her boiler on 31 August 2021 and that its contractor had attended the same day to clear a blockage on the condense pipe. The contractor had recommended follow up works to check for further blockages, as the condense pipe was linked to the rainwater pipe. An order was raised on 2 September 2021.
6. There had been a delay whilst the plumbing contractor waited for a decision on whether the boiler was to be relocated.Once the decision was made that the boiler would not be relocated due to the cost, the landlord instructed the plumber to attend, and an appointment was arranged for 30 September 2021.
7. This had left the resident without heating between 31 August 2021 and 30 September 2021, and it apologised that this had happened.
8. Under the terms of its compensation policy, it could offer compensation for “loss of amenities of 25% of your net rent for each day after the first 24 hours of the problem arising.” It calculated this as £4.13 per day for a period of 30 days and offered the resident a total of £123.90 for the period she had been without heating.
9. In line with its compensation policy the compensation offered would be credited to the resident’s rent account.
On 10 October 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord accepting the compensation offered through its stage 1 response and requested that her complaint be escalated.
A stage 2 complaints panel hearing was held on 1 December 2021 and the written outcome of this was provided to the resident on 23 December 2021. The landlord concluded that the compensation offered within its stage 1 response in respect of the loss of heating was reasonable. It further concluded that the position of the boiler was adequate, and it did not need to be moved.
At the panel hearing the resident had said that she had to frequently reset her boiler, which she used a wooden spoon to do given the height of the boiler, and that the thermostat was flashing red. In its stage 2 reply the landlord confirmed that its repairs team had contacted the resident to arrange a visit to inspect the boiler as it was unusual to have to frequently reset this. Furthermore, it confirmed that she had been advised to change the battery in the thermostat to address the issue of it flashing red. The resident had done this, and it was working normally.

Residents request for the boiler to be boxed in

On 5 May 2021, the landlord raised an order to “box in the boiler and pipes.” An appointment was arranged for the 23 May 2021. The contractor did not attend as planned and did not arrange an alternative appointment.
The landlord passed the job to another contractor on 26 May 2021. The contractor emailed the landlord on 1 June 2021. It had not visited the property but had spoken with the resident and she had provided photographs. The contractor advised the landlord that the resident was seeking “a cosmetic boxing in of the boiler and gas meter, and there were no dangerous wires.” The contractor concluded that it was “not good practice to box in boilers and that the works would be costly.” It provided a quote of between £600 and £800 to undertake the work, covering the cost of materials and labour.
Considering its contractor’s feedback and the potential costs, the landlord cancelled the job on 3 June 2021 and notified the resident of its decision not to proceed with the works.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s decision and in reply stated that “other residents had their boilers boxed in”. She further said that she only wanted the meter boxed in. She questioned why this had previously been approved.
The landlord responded on 22 June 2021. It apologised and explained that the job should not have been approved at the outset as this was not a repair and fell outside of the landlord’s repairs policy. It agreed to review its decision but explained that this may take a few weeks due to the “nonurgent nature” of her request.
On 29 September 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident via email. It confirmed its decision that it would not be boxing in the meter as this fell outside its repairs policy.
On the 5 October 2021, the landlord provided a response to the resident’s complaint submitted on 21 September 2021. In this she had complained about her boiler and referred to her request for her meter to be covered. In its response the landlord:
1. Apologised for the missed appointment on 23 May 2021.
2. Confirmed the advice it received on 1 June 2021 that the boiler, pipework, and wires posed no health and safety risk and that to box it in could make future maintenance difficult and decrease ventilation.
3. Advised that it had considered the contractors recommendation and the potential cost of the works. As the works “were not essential in order to repair a defect”, the landlord concluded that these were outside its repairing responsibilities, and it could not justify this expenditure.
4. Said that this decision had initially been communicated to the resident on 3 June 2021 and reiterated on 17 June 2021.
5. Explained that the initial repair had been raised based on the resident’s report that wires were exposed. It acknowledged that in doing so this raised an expectation that works would be carried out.
6. The landlord apologised to the resident for not correctly identifying the cosmetic nature of the request at the outset and offered £25 compensation as it understood that it should have better managed her expectations.
7. It explained that it did not have the resources to carry out these works but advised that the resident could undertake the works herself.
On 10 October the resident wrote to the landlord requesting that her complaint be escalated. In this she asked, “Is my meter going to be boxed in?”.
The landlord held a stage 2 panel hearing on 1 December 2021. At this the landlord asked the resident to clarify her request around the boxing in of the pipework and her meter. She said that she had just asked for the meter to be boxed in before the other issues with the boiler arose. She said “the issue is when I work from home in my kitchen, you can see the boiler behind me, it’s not nice to look at. I just wanted the boxing.”
In its written follow up to the panel hearing, the panel concluded that boxing in of the pipes and the meter was an improvement, rather than a repair and was not therefore required. It acknowledged that its communication had been poor and upheld the decision made in considering her complaint at stage 1 to offer the resident £25 compensation for this.

Assessment and findings

Reports of antisocial behaviour

It is acknowledged that the type of behaviour reported by the resident will have been a source of distress for her. Nevertheless, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to prove whether events took place as alleged but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about these appropriately and reasonably, and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The resident’s initial reports to the landlord about her neighbour’s plant pots were addressed promptly. The landlord wrote to and visited her neighbour and asked for the pots to be removed. It followed up where its initial request was not complied with, and highlighted the potential health and safety issue of plant pots being placed on the windowsills by writing to all neighbouring residents. This was an appropriate and proportionate response in the circumstances.
The landlord followed up the resident’s reports of a police incident at her neighbour’s property in a timely manner, contacting residents and seeking information about what had happened. It appropriately acknowledged within its stage 1 response to the resident that it had failed to follow its policy and procedure in not retaining detailed records of this incident and its follow up, or recording the follow up it took with the police.
A warning letter was sent to the resident’s neighbour on 23 September 2021 regarding her behaviour. It is noted that on 8 October 2021, the landlord made a verbal suggestion to the resident that she consider participation in mediation with her neighbour. This was appropriate in the circumstances and, in line with the landlords policy, an opportunity to work with the neighbours to rebuild relationships.
The landlord provided a written report to the resident on 16 December 2021 of the outcome of its investigation into her complaints of antisocial behaviour. This was two months after the issues were highlighted through the escalation of her formal complaint. While it is important that the landlord is thorough in its investigations of reported breaches of tenancy, it should also ensure that it engages regularly with those reporting instances of antisocial behaviour. From the evidence provided, the landlord did not maintain regular contact with the resident through its investigations. In light of this, the delay in its final written report was unreasonable.
The landlord did not effectively manage the resident’s reports of various incidents involving conflict with her neighbour. It does appear from the evidence presented, that on some occasions the incidents reported by the resident were not witnessed by or directed at her but were reported on behalf of another resident within the building. There were also instances where there were no witnesses as to the incidents reported by the resident. The landlord did not provide advice to the resident as to the actions that it could take or advise where it was unable to act. It also did not provide a clear definition as to what were acts of antisocial behaviour or breaches of tenancy. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide such an explanation. Doing so would have helped to manage the resident’s expectations, but would have also helped her to understand why no further action was being taken by the landlord at that time.
The landlord did not follow its antisocial behaviour procedure. There is no evidence that the landlord agreed an action plan with the resident, or agreed the frequency with which it would provide feedback on its investigations. Its procedure sets out that an action plan should be completed with the resident, as a means to agree next steps and manage the residents expectations. The failure of the landlord to respond to reports of poor behaviour in a timely manner or manage the resident’s expectations as to the actions that it could reasonably take appears to have created an element of frustration for the resident and that there was increasing animosity with her neighbours.
The complaint panel discussed with the resident her desired outcome and made recommendationsof action it would take to put things right. The panel appropriately took on board her request to install CCTV to the communal areas of the building and to the instal secure post boxes. These items, alongside the provision of staff training on managing reports of antisocial behaviour, were recorded as actions to be followed up after the conclusion of her stage 2 complaint.
The provision of these items would have provided reassurance to the resident, given have reports that her post had been tampered with, and could have assisted the landlord in investigating future incidents.
From the evidence provided it does not appear that these actions were immediately followed up. It is acknowledged that the landlord had to consult with residents around the installation of CCTV. The landlord advised the resident on 7 April 2022, that it was undertaking a “data protection impact assessment” ahead of the installation of CCTV to the communal areas. The landlord has confirmed to this service that CCTV has been installed to the ground floor of the building.
The recommended installation of individual post boxes was not carried out. It is noted that this element now forms the outcome of a future complaint raised by the resident. There was a clear failure on the part of the landlord not to follow through the recommendations made by its complaints panel.
Considering this element of the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s responses through its complaints process and the actions of its staff in following up on those outcomes there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
Through its complaints process the landlord made two offers of compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its failings in handling her reports of antisocial behaviour. A total of £150 was offered. In assessing the landlord’s failure in its handling of this case and in particular its failure to action those commitments made as part of its stage 2 response an order for a more appropriate level of compensation has been made.

Repairs to the boiler and a request to relocate the boiler

The landlord initially received feedback from one of its contractors at the beginning of August that the resident’s boiler was located too high. It appropriately referred this internally to its compliance team who raised an order for a specialist contractor to carry out an assessment and provide it with advice.
It appears that this then overlapped with the resident’s report of a leak from the boiler on 31 August 2021. The landlord responded both appropriately and in a timely manner to the resident’s initial reports that her boiler was leaking, arranging for a contractor to attend the same day.
There was an unreasonable delay in undertaking the follow up works which left the resident without the use of her boiler for a month. The landlord has advised that this was in part due to the involvement of two different contractors, one reviewing the location of the boiler and one to remedy the leak on the boiler. The follow on works were delayed whilst a final decision was made on the location of the boiler. This does not appear to have been clearly communicated to the resident and necessitated her chasing the repair on 29 September 2021.
In its response to her complaint about the length of time she was without heating the landlord appropriately offered compensation for loss of amenity in line with its own compensation policy. A total offer of £123.90 was made based on 25 percent of the resident’s weekly rent.
As to the issue of the boiler’s location, the landlord reasonably relied on the expert recommendation of its contractor that to relocate the boiler would be extremely costly, equivalent to providing a replacement, and that it was not necessary to do so at that time. A recommendation was made by the contractor and accepted by the landlord to provide the resident with a remote time switch. The resident declined this solution.
It is wholly appropriate for the landlord to consider costs and to ensure that it undertakes the most appropriate and cost effective solution. It tenancy agreement sets an obligation for it to “keep in repair and good working order… central heating installation”. To move the boiler and incur costs similar to providing a replacement falls outside of its obligation to “repair”.
Having considered the length of time the resident was left without heating and the compensation offered by the landlord through its complaints process, this service considers that reasonable redress was offered by the landlord in response to this element of the resident’s complaint.

Resident’s request for the boiler and gas meter to be boxed in

In raising a request for a contractor to box in both the boiler and associated pipework, the landlord set an expectation for the resident that these were works that it would carry out.
Following the failure of the initial contractor to attend, a second contractor provided an assessment to the landlord of the extent of the works that would be required and the associated costs. This contractor also advised that boxing in the boiler could restrict both access for future repairs and reduce ventilation. On receiving this the landlord cancelled the works order and notified the resident that it would not carry out the works.
The resident was unhappy with this outcome and advised that she only wanted the gas meter boxing in. In its follow up reply the landlord advised that it would not carry out these works as they were outside its repairs policy.
The landlord’s repairs policy establishes what the landlord is responsible for in terms of repairs and sets out that these should provide “good value for residents from available financial resources”. To box in the gas meter or the boiler falls outside the repairs policy.
There was a raised expectation for the resident that the works would be done, and the landlord could have better communicated its decision to the resident. This was acknowledged by the landlord in its complaint’s responses and through on offer of £25 compensation.
Considering the aspects of this complaint and the landlord’s responses this service considers that the landlord offered reasonable redress at the point of considering the resident’s complaint. The landlord has taken positive steps to acknowledge where it got things wrong and offered an apology to the resident at each stage. While it is noted that the resident will remain disappointed with the outcome, the landlord’s decision regarding the works themselves was appropriate in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint in respect of reports of repairs to the boiler and a request to relocate the boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the boiler and gas meter to be boxed in.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of antisocial behaviour by her neighbour fell short of the requirements of its own policy and procedure.
The landlord acknowledged its own failings at stage 1 but there was a continued delay in follow up on future reports of incidents and a failure to provide a clear step by step action plan. It failed to act swiftly and appropriately, and to set clear expectations as to what it could do.
The landlord took appropriate steps to review the location of the resident’s boiler on receiving reports that it was located too high on the wall. It then took on board the recommendations of its expert contractor offering an alternative solution to the costly remedy of relocating the boiler.
There was a delay in the boiler repair being completed and the landlord appropriately acknowledged this delay with the level of compensation offered.
Boxing in of the meter and or boiler was not works that the landlord was obliged to carry out. This was incorrectly raised in the first instance and the landlord offered an appropriate apology and compensation in line with its own procedure for its raised expectations.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified through this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £498.90 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £150 for its failure to follow through the actions recommended as an outcome to its stage 2 complaints process.
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of her reports of antisocial behaviour.
  3. £123.90 for the loss of heating for the period 31 August 2021 to 30 September 2021.
  4. £25 for its poor communication in respect of the resident’s request for her boiler and meter to be boxed in. The landlord’s previous offer of £298.90should be deducted from this amount if already paid. The landlord should provide confirmation of payment.
3. Confirm to this service that:
  1. It has installed individual post boxes for each resident.
  2. All of its staff have received training on the management of reports of antisocial behaviour and the implementation of its good neighbour policy.