Sanctuary Housing Association (202011577)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011577

Sanctuary Housing Association

28 May 2021

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB);
2. the resident’s request for a rent account refund;
3. the resident’s allegations that staff members breached confidentiality.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant and her tenancy began on 31 March 2017.
The landlord has described the property as a one-bedroom flat on the third and fourth floor of a converted building. It is based within a scheme that offers short-term accommodation for adults with support needs.
The tenancy agreement requires the landlord to keep in proper working order doors and any communal areas and obliges the resident to:
1. pay rent, service charges and any other charges weekly in advance
2. not cause a nuisance or annoyance to anyone else ‘in the locality of the property’ – it lists types of nuisance that includes ‘excessive noise’.

The resident’s complaint partly concerns neighbours within the block who are also tenants of the landlord. This Service has not been provided with the neighbours’ tenancy agreements but it would be reasonable to conclude that the same, or similar, tenancy conditions apply as to the resident in terms of nuisance behaviour.

A separate support agreement dated 14 April 2017 says that:
1. the landlord will appoint a key worker who will work with the resident to assess support needs, identify plans to be achieved and agree regular meetings with the resident to review this plan; in turn, the resident must agree to work with the key worker
2. the landlord will ensure that personal information about the resident is kept confidential ‘to the staff team and their managers’ who work with the resident
3. if the resident no longer receives support then their accommodation ‘may be in jeopardy’.
The landlord has an ASB policy that says it will:
1. look to modify behaviour ‘through support, persuasion and legal sanction rather than moving or displacing ASB through eviction or re-housing’
2. ‘identify vulnerable people, whether victim or perpetrator’ and work with them appropriately.
The landlord has an ASB procedure that sets out that noise nuisance ‘can be either continuous or intermittent, but in either case it must affect the comfort or quality of life of a reasonable person’ and it is ‘bound by the statutory definition of noise nuisance’. The procedure requires the landlord to:
1. keep detailed records of ASB reports
2. contact and interview victims within five working days
3. agree an action plan to investigate ASB by interviewing the alleged perpetrator (within 10 working days), asking the victim to complete diary sheets and liaising with other investigators such as the Police
4. ‘consider the positive effects that support might have on perpetrators’, particularly in cases that involve drug abuse
5. use informal measures such as mediation, tenancy support, verbal/written warnings and acceptable behaviour contracts with ‘formal legal action a last resort’
6. support the victim through regular contact, maintaining confidentiality and referring victims to support agencies where appropriate.
The landlord has an ASB procedure for supported living that defines ‘noise nuisance’ as a Category B type of behaviour that means it is not initially logged on the ASB system. Instead, staff are required to try to ‘resolve matters by discussion’. This procedure adds that ‘any clients with drug related support needs must be working towards their support plan to address these’.
The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure but will not raise a complaint where an issue occurred more than six months previously. It responds to complaints within 10 working days at stage one and within 20 working days at stage two.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s records show that the resident made consistent reports during September 2018 to August 2019 about neighbours banging on doors and shouting during the night and that this completed the landlord’s complaints procedure in October 2019. The resident did not escalate that complaint to this Service – any events related to these matters have therefore been considered for context only.
During this period, the landlord’s internal records show that it met with the resident on 11 July 2019 – she raised concerns that staff had breached confidentiality in the past and would therefore not divulge details of her medical needs. The landlord noted that it had advised the resident to make a complaint but she had refused as she only wanted to explain why she did not want to share too many details with them. The resident was apparently unwilling to advise which staff members she was referring to so the landlord advised her it would remind staff generally on professional standards.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 September 2019 and 18 October 2019 – she advised that she calculated she had been overpaying her rent and said that she would submit evidence in the form of bank statements. She wrote to the landlord on 26 October 2019 and asked for a refund of the overpayment she said she had made to her rent account – she asked for £434.72 to be refunded. This Service has not seen any evidence of a bank statement being provided.
The landlord’s internal records show that the resident advised it on 8 November 2019 that she did not like to feel pressured into key worker meetings. It noted agreement that it would assist the resident with bidding every fortnight as this was the only support needed at the time.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 November 2019 – it provided a rent statement and told her that her rent account was effectively £565.77 in arrears. It offered a breakdown as to how it had reached this calculation. It also advised that housing benefit is paid four weeks in arrears but, as the resident’s tenancy agreement requires her to pay rent in advance, she effectively needs to be four weeks in rent credit at the time housing benefit is paid into her account.
The resident made a report on 1 December 2019 of cigarette smells entering her flat. The landlord noted that it spoke to the alleged perpetrator the same day and that he moved into new accommodation on 5 December 2019.
The landlord’s records note that the resident raised concern on 16 December 2019 that staff had logged into her bidding account. The landlord advised that this had happened in late November 2019 during a key worker meeting with the resident in order to check the account was still active. She asked the landlord not to access the account again and it agreed.
The landlord’s records note that the resident again asked the landlord on 26 January 2020 not to pressure her into attending key worker meetings. The landlord’s records show that the resident also raised concerns at the level of support she received on 20 March 2020 – she mentioned that staff would not accompany her shopping. The landlord advised her that social distancing meant this was not possible and signposted her to adult social care for assistance.
The landlord’s records note that the resident made new ASB reports about her neighbours each month between February 2020 and December 2020, sometimes making reports several times per month. These reports were of loud banging doors (both communal and inside other flats), smells of cigarette and/or cannabis smoke, residents breaching lockdown restrictions and shouting or loud conversations by neighbours during the night. In response, the landlord has noted the following actions up to the point the resident made a complaint in September 2020:
1. put up posters during 5-6 February 2020 for residents to take care with communal doors, re-erected this on 30 May 2020 and installed new signage on 27 July 2020
2. wrote to all residents on 31 March 2020 with lockdown guidance, followed by issuing of further pandemic-related guidance or consultation on 8 June 2020, 15 June 2020, 22 July 2020, 20 August 2020 and 9 September 2020
3. reviewed CCTV footage on 14 April 2020 and 30 May 2020 but found no unusual activity
4. interviewed neighbours on at least nine occasions between 20 May 2020 and 24 September 2020
5. gave advice to individual neighbours in May 2020, July 2020 and September 2020 about opening of windows and smoking in different locations to reduce the potential impact on the resident
6. discussed further support with the resident on 16 June 2020 and 29 June 2020 but noted that this was rejected by the resident
7. provided the resident with an ASB diary sheet on 26 June 2020 which it noted she had rejected
8. issued warnings to neighbours about a combination of noise and lockdown breaches on 25 June 2020, 10 September 2020 and 25 September 2020 as well as signing an acceptable behaviour agreement with a neighbour (about noise) on 21 September 2020
9. conducted block walkabouts on 10 July 2020, 3 August 2020, 17 August 2020, 14 September 2020 and 26 September 2020 when no evidence of cigarette or cannabis use was established
10. investigated social distancing breaches on 23 July 2020, noting that this had been due to three residents receiving simultaneous deliveries to the block
11. sent letters to all residents on 6 August 2020 and 11 September 2020, reminding them of its drug policy
12. noted it would discuss use of communal doors with two residents in their next key worker meetings following a CCTV review on 12 August 2020
13. detected a faint odour of cannabis on 16 August 2020, leading to a police referral which did not establish a potential perpetrator
14. issued warnings to neighbours about potential cannabis use on 30 August 2020 and 10 September 2020
15. noted on 15 September 2020 that all communal door closers had been adjusted.
The resident submitted a complaint by email on 26 September 2020. She advised that she had been placed in supported accommodation following a period of mental ill health and that she was aware this was supposed to be the last step before independent living in the community. She complained that:
1. two neighbours had caused anti-social behaviour by loudly knocking on another neighbour’s door and all three had caused noise nuisance with loud banging, shouting and conversations during the night that meant she had not been able to sleep and it had taken the landlord 18 months to evict one of the neighbours (in early 2020)
2. she had heard staff making inappropriate comments about her mental health and her former partner’s drug use, was concerned that they had breached confidentiality by discussing her circumstances in front of third parties and alleged that they had encouraged her to lie
3. she felt unable to access support from staff as she felt intimated by them
4. there was a constant, ongoing problem with the site smelling of drugs which she had reported to the landlord but they had taken no actions (she provided more details on this on 7 October 2020 when she advised of cigarette smells entering her home)
5. she reported lockdown breaches by her neighbour but the landlord did not act on these for six weeks until an advocate assisted
6. her rent account was overpaid by around £400 but the landlord was unwilling to refund this credit
7. the landlord had pressured her into leaving the accommodation by submitting a housing application for her and accessing her housing account without permission
8. these issues had impacted her physical and mental health.
The resident made a further report of cigarette smoke on 6 October 2020. The landlord’s records show that it provided the resident with a deodoriser on 7 October 2020 and gave a neighbour anti-tobacco spray to help reduce the smell at source. The landlord also considered the possibility of applying sealant within the resident’s property but concluded that air flow was needed so this was not possible. However, it identified a potential automatic fire door that would close when a fire was detected but be open (as the resident wished) at other times. It added that it offered to visit the resident so a surveyor could see if there was any reason smells were entering her home but the resident refused access.
The landlord sent a holding response on 9 October 2020 before it issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 14 October 2020. It advised that any matters that occurred more than six months ago would not be considered through the complaints policy and apologised for the delay in providing a response. It concluded that:
1. past anti-social behaviour reports had been considered and responded to in October 2019 (a copy of the response was attached) so this would not be reviewed again
2. the staff behaviour and comments allegations were over six months old so could not be considered through the complaints process
3. an apology was offered for any past lack of staff support but weekly support sessions had been available to the resident which she had often not attended; it noted that ‘support is available informally during staffing hours and more structured support is a requirement of staying in service’
4. the resident was thanked for reporting substance misuse at the block and actions were taken where appropriate (details of which could not be shared due to confidentiality)
5. residents had largely complied with lockdown guidance but an incident had occurred around visitors that had led to a warning being issued in June 2020
6. residents are asked to be one week’s rent in advance plus four weeks personal charge; it said this amounted to £370.23 credit but the resident’s balance was £300.45 so she was £69.78 in arrears and any credit would be refunded once the rent account was closed
7. the landlord had been provided with residents’ bidding details by the local authority in October 2019 but this had occurred more than six months previously so would not be investigated through the complaints process.
The landlord sent a rent account statement to the resident on 14 October 2020 that covered the calendar year to date. This showed an account balance of £64.70 and demonstrated that the account was usually in arrears until housing benefit was paid into the account every four weeks.
Between the stage one complaint response of 14 October 2020 and December 2020 (when a final complaint response was issued), the landlord noted the following further actions in response to the resident’s ASB reports:
1. it recorded that the resident had attended a key worker session on 20 October 2020 but refused further housing-related support
2. it wrote to the resident on 21 October 2020 about cigarette smoke, advising that residents are permitted to smoke inside their flats but not in communal areas and that it had provided a battery powered air freshener for the area in question and given the resident anti-tobacco smell spray
3. found an office door was causing the resident disturbance on 9 November 2020 so reminded staff to close doors carefully and use a buffer on the catch
4. interviewed a neighbour on 13 November 2020, asking them to avoid causing a noise during the night
5. investigated a report of cannabis smells on 19 November 2020, issuing a final warning to a neighbour as a result
6. conducted a block walkabout on 23 November 2020, noting it was unable to detect a cannabis smell
7. reviewed CCTV footage on 24 November 2020 in response to a noise nuisance report, noting that the Police had been called to the block and may have been responsible for some noise
8. reviewed CCTV footage on 28 and 30 November 2020, noting that no potential perpetrators of noise were identified
9. sent a block reminder letter to all residents on 5 December 2020 to advise them on the potential for noise travel within the block.
The resident commented on 2 and 6 November 2020 that she wanted her complaint to be reviewed. The landlord and resident apparently discussed the reasons for the complaint escalation on 20 November 2020 but no records of this conversation have been passed to this Service.
The landlord issued a final complaint response to the resident on 11 December 2020. It said that this contained elements of two complaints and concluded that:
1. specific confidentiality allegations had not been investigated as they were over six months old but it offered reassurance that all staff have professional boundaries training and the concerns had been passed to management
2. it encouraged the resident to continue liaising with the local service manager about her support needs and attend future key work meetings
3. any credit on the rent account would be refunded when the resident vacated the property
4. staff had obtained residents’ bidding numbers from the local authority in an effort to support residents to move on
5. a fire technician had considered the banging fire doors but concluded that replacing them would not resolve the issue and door closers had instead been adjusted and replaced plus a letter had been sent to all residents to be mindful
6. the resident had stated that ‘drug fumes’ coming through her flooring was not currently an issue
7. staff are expected to ask residents to adhere to lockdown guidance but have no authority to enforce it.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 December 2020. She advised that:
1. there is an ongoing need for staff to maintain the highest level of confidentiality and she had provided examples of ‘non confidential’ behaviour on 23 September 2020, including an officer who had used her personal pin to access her housing account
2. past incidents of lack of support and breach of confidentiality by officers had caused distress
3. she had overpaid her rent by £430
4. she would pursue the bidding number matter with the local authority
5. she would continue to report banging fire doors to staff
6. she would continue to report ‘drug fumes’ to staff and the ‘smoke fumes’ from her neighbour were ongoing
7. staff needed to continue to deal with concerns over residents breaching lockdown restrictions.
The landlord responded to the resident on 31 December 2020. It advised that:
1. staff could not enforce lockdown restrictions but would continue to advise residents to adhere to guidance
2. the breach of confidentiality allegations were outside of the complaints policy due to timescale but it would investigate any new allegations
3. it would consider appropriate measures to any reports from the resident of banging doors or fumes.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 January 2021 and said that there had been no decisive conclusion to her complaint.
The landlord replied to the resident on 29 January 2021. It said that no further actions were needed in response to the resident’s specific complaints but it would continue to respond to any ‘day to day’ reports from her. It confirmed the complaint was closed.
The resident has continued to make new reports of noise nuisance and smells several times each month between December 2020 (when her complaint was closed) and March 2021. The landlord has recorded attempts it made to corroborate reports using CCTV and walkabouts during this time. Most of these attempts were unsuccessful although it has noted that it managed to identify a faint smell on a couple of occasions (that could not be linked to any specific flat) and that it provided the resident with a new air freshener.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

ASB Reports

The Ombudsman considers complaints about how a landlord has responded to reports of a problem. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the alleged perpetrators amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
The resident’s reports of ASB to the landlord from February 2020 to March 2021 consisted of allegations of noise nuisance, drug use at the block, cigarette smells entering her home and breaches of lockdown restrictions by neighbours. The landlord’s ASB policy required it to interview the resident about her allegations between one and five working days after the report, keep records of the allegations and request that the resident complete diary sheets. The landlord’s case files demonstrate that it usually spoke to the resident about the details of her ASB reports on the same day they were received and, although it did not immediately request that the resident complete diary sheets, it did make detailed records of each incident reported by the resident. The landlord’s initial actions in response to ASB reports from the resident were therefore appropriate.
The landlord’s ASB policy outlines that it should investigate potential ASB by using diary sheets, interviewing potential witnesses and employing a multi-agency approach (for instance, with the Police). In response to the resident’s reports, the landlord has noted that it interviewed other neighbours and potential perpetrators on numerous occasions, conducted block walkabouts and reviewed CCTV footage on several occasions, asked the resident to complete diary sheets (which she refused) and involved the Police where there was evidence of potential criminal behaviour. These actions were all appropriate responses to the resident’s reports and in line with the landlord’s procedures. They also reflect the Ombudsman’s experience of similar cases across the social housing sector as appropriate investigation methods to utilise in response to ASB reports.
The landlord’s ASB policy obliges it to use ‘support’ and ‘persuasion’ to modify potential ASB. In this regard, the landlord has noted that it attempted to reduce nuisance by:
1. Noise nuisance – it erected signage in communal areas on a few occasions and issued block letters to remind all residents of their responsibilities and minimise potential nuisance activity
2. Cigarette smoke – it spoke to neighbours and explored ways in which cigarette smoking – which was not in breach of their tenancy conditions – could be adapted to avoid them impacting on the resident
3. Lockdown restrictions – there is no evidence that the landlord was responsible for enforcement of lockdown restrictions but it did attempt to encourage neighbours to adhere to the regulations by issuing block letters on a few occasions

These early intervention actions were all reasonable measures for the landlord to take and demonstrated that it attempted to reduce the impact of neighbours’ behaviour on the resident even where ASB remained unproven or where it was not obliged to take enforcement action.

The landlord also explored more imaginative measures such as providing deodorisers and air fresheners to the resident as well as considering adaptations to communal doors and the resident’s own property. Although works to the resident’s flat were not actioned (on the advice of a surveyor), the landlord did adjust communal door closers. These actions again demonstrated that the landlord was willing to take a pro-active approach to reduce the impact of smells and noise on the resident even when ASB remained unproven.
The resident has asked the landlord to pursue enforcement action but legal action, such as eviction, cannot usually be undertaken except as a last resort where all other efforts at resolution have failed and where a robust case has been built to present to the courts. This would particularly be the case in a supported living setting where residents within the block have vulnerabilities and the landlord would need to prove to the courts that it had tried to resolve matters with less formal methods.
Nevertheless, where the landlord established evidence of noise nuisance or drug use, it noted verbal and written warnings were given to neighbours and escalated these to final warnings when required. There were six occasions during 2020 where the landlord’s records show it was able to corroborate ASB in the form of noise nuisance or drug use and the landlord recorded that verbal or written warnings (and the signing of an acceptable behaviour agreement) were completed in all instances – these enforcement measures were in accordance with the landlord’s ASB procedure and therefore appropriate actions.
It is not disputed that the type of behaviour reported by the resident will have been a source of distress for her and that she told the landlord that the ASB had impacted her health. In response, the landlord recorded that it:
1. acknowledged and acted upon ASB reports quickly
2. spoke regularly to the resident, making offers to meet and visit her
3. signposted her to adult social care for support with carrying shopping and other potential care needs
4. offered further support at key worker meetings on two occasions in June 2020
5. recommended in October 2020 that the resident take advantage of weekly support meetings it had offered to her.

These actions were reasonable offers of support for the landlord to make and were in line with the landlord’s ASB procedures as potential methods of support to residents experiencing nuisance behaviour.

In summary, the resident took appropriate steps to acknowledge, investigate and action the resident’s ASB reports during February 2020 to March 2021. It interviewed the resident, used appropriate investigation methods, liaised with third parties such as the Police, raised concerns with neighbours and took formal enforcement action where evidence of ASB was established. It also took reasonable steps to offer support to the resident in accordance with its ASB procedures and offered weekly meetings in line with the support agreement.

Rent account

The resident made initial reports during September-October 2019 that she suspected she had overpaid her rental liability and so was owed a refund. She advised that she would provide a bank statement. This would have allowed the landlord to check whether any payments were missing from the resident’s rent account but there is no evidence seen by this Service that a bank statement was offered.
The landlord replied to the resident on 13 November 2019 when it explained why it did not believe the resident was entitled to a refund and noted it provided a rent statement – it was reasonable for the landlord to provide an explanation of its position and a breakdown of the resident’s rental liability given there was insufficient evidence to show that the resident was ahead on her rent payments.
There is no evidence that the resident raised this matter again with the landlord prior to the complaint she made in late September 2020. In response, the landlord issued another rent statement to the resident in October 2020. This statement covered the resident’s rent account for the previous 10 months, showed that the account had been in debit for four of the previous five weeks and set out that the account balance was £64.70 in debit. Given the account was not in credit and had not regularly been in credit according to the rent statement, it was reasonable that the landlord decided it was not able to process a refund.
The resident has since reiterated that she has overpaid her rent liability by £434 but, based on evidence seen by this Service, the account has not been in credit by this amount at all during 2020 – it is therefore reasonable that the landlord has not refunded £434 to the resident.
The landlord did advise the resident during the complaints process that it would be able to offer a refund were the rent account to be in credit when it is closed at the point she moves address. This advice was reasonable and demonstrated that the landlord was willing to re-visit the resident’s refund request when the account is reconciled at the end of her tenancy.
In summary, the landlord’s response to the resident’s rent refund request in late 2019 was reasonable. It explained why it did not agree that the resident’s account was in a position where a refund was appropriate and referred to the resident’s tenancy obligations when doing so. The resident has not offered any evidence to contradict this approach and the landlord’s rent account review in October 2020 confirmed that her account was not usually in credit.

Staff conduct

The resident initially raised concerns in July 2019 that staff members had breached her confidentiality and that of others. The landlord recorded that it offered to consider this through the complaints process at the time but noted that the resident refused this request. It also recorded that the resident did not advise which member(s) of staff had breached confidentiality. Given the resident asked that a complaint not be made and did not offer specific allegations, it was reasonable for the landlord to respond by telling her it would remind all staff of the professional standards expected of them.
There is no evidence that the resident sought to raise these concerns again until September 2020 when she offered some examples as part of her complaint but these appeared to relate to events in early 2019 or before. The landlord advised her that it could not consider these aspects of the complaint due to the amount of time that had passed but that it was willing to review any more recent instances. The landlord’s complaints policy says that events that occurred more than six months prior to a complaint being made are outside the remit of the complaints process – its decision not to investigate breach of confidentiality allegations that occurred more than 12 months previously was therefore appropriate as was its offer to investigate any more recent instances.
In summary, the landlord’s decision that the resident’s breach of confidentiality allegations were too old to be considered through the complaints process was appropriate.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of ASB;
2. the resident’s request for a rent account refund;
3. the resident’s allegations that staff members breached confidentiality.

Reasons

The landlord conducted appropriate investigations into the resident’s ASB reports during February 2020 to March 2021 and took enforcement actions when evidence was obtained.
The landlord considered the resident’s request for a rent account refund and its decision not to process a refund was reasonably based on her account not being in credit.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s allegations that staff members breached confidentiality was in line with its complaints policy.

Recommendations

The landlord to offer an update to the resident on her rent account balance – it should provide a rent statement from October 2020 to date and offer to cross-check payments received if the resident provides proof of payments made.
The landlord to advise the resident what steps it has taken since July 2019 to ensure that members of staff treat resident information confidentially.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to these recommendations to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.