ONE of the largest housing associations in Sussex has been criticised by watchdogs after a body lay undiscovered in a flat for three months.

A tenant has also been awarded almost £2,000 compensation after the Chichester District Housing Association let a flat to a convicted criminal who made the woman's life a misery.

The incidents happened at St Wilfrid's flats in Elm Grove, Brighton. The tenant was so disturbed by the activities of her neighbour that she had to leave her home.

First the organisation let a flat to a mentally-ill man who unnerved residents with his screaming and other disturbing behaviour.

When the man "disappeared" the organisation failed to realise he had died until police investigated neighbours' complaints about a smell. He had been dead in the flat for three months.

The association then replaced the tenant with a convicted criminal.

Residents in the block of flats had to endure late-night disturbances and threatening behaviour.

The new tenant subsequently faced charges of theft and affray but while on bail he let other people - who residents claimed were dealing in drugs - live at the flat.

There followed more disturbances and the 35-year-old neighbour was threatened with violence.

The woman, who asked not to be named, told the Argus: "I went to hell and back and would not want my worst enemy to have to go through this.

"The first tenant was very, very drunk and there would be outbursts day and night.

"He would scream at the walls and one time he cut into his neck with a knife.

"The problems were all reported to the housing association but nothing was done.

"When the next tenant moved in it became a living hell.

"It was like a junkie den, with people coming and going all evening and night. There would be up to eight people there, causing all sorts of problems.

"There was the ringing of doorbells, loud music and people with coshes and knives turning up.

"It was very frightening for

the residents, many of them elderly, and you didn't know if you were going to be attacked or stabbed."

"The CDHA was supposed to meet, interview and vet prospective tenants but they didn't do that."

The problems took place between the end of 1994 and the end of 1997.

The woman kept diaries of the problems and sent a lengthy report signed by 12 other residents of the 23-flat block to the CDHA.

The association failed to answer questions raised and, unhappy with the tenants' meeting it organised instead, the tenant who complained went to the Independent Housing Ombudsman.

Ombudsman Roger Jefferies concluded that both lettings had been inappropriate and that the CDHA had failed to properly manage the resulting problems and adequately address residents' complaints.

Finding the CDHA guilty of maladministration, he said the association had taken "few steps" to check the suitability of the first tenant and that the woman tenant and other

residents had "suffered quite serious nuisance from his disordered behaviour."

On the second tenancy, the CDHA claimed it had interviewed the prospective tenant and he had filled out an application form. Later enquiries showed the local authority nominee had, at the that time, been in prison.

When the tenancy was taken up, the association failed to keep adequate records or respond "sympathetically or effectively" to complaints and residents' concerns.

Mr Jefferies said: "This case illustrates dramatically the importance of landlords not forgetting their responsibilities to their existing tenants when letting properties."

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.