Together Housing Association Limited (202211953)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211953

Together Housing Association Limited

13 February 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:
1. Handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. Response to the resident’s complaint about staff conduct.
3. Handling of the formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has told the landlord and this Service that he has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and a mental health condition.
Under the tenancy agreement residents must not harass others and must “act in a fair and reasonable way” towards the landlord and its staff. They also must not act, or threaten to act, in any way which causes nuisance, annoyance or disturbance; use, or threaten to use, abusive or violent behaviour, towards anyone living in or visiting the area.
The landlord’s ASB policy uses the section 2 Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 definition of ASB, which is conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress, nuisance, or annoyance, to any person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises. The policy says it will take into account any vulnerabilities the resident complaining may have and will take proportionate action based on the severity of the ASB. Residents are to report ASB to the landlord and crime to the police. They are also to co-operate with the landlord by providing details and evidence.
Under the policy the landlord will risk assess any reports of ASB and will take actions based on this. For reported noise or drug activity it will ask the resident to collect evidence using diary sheets. For harassment it will investigate and respond within 5 working days. The landlord will also work with the police and other partner agencies.
The landlord has a professional conduct policy which sets out the behaviour expectations for its staff. It covers professional boundaries and prohibits bullying or harassment of residents.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it manages complaints in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. It defines a complaint as “‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”. The policy states that the landlord will not accept a complaint if it relates to matters which have already exhausted its complaints process.
It operates a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and will respond within 10 working days. If it cannot keep to this timeframe, and has good reason, it will let the resident know of an extension of time, which will not exceed 20 working days unless agreed with the resident. If the resident is dissatisfied, they can ask to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The landlord will acknowledge escalation within 5 working days and will provide a response within 20 working days.

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman has reviewed all the evidence which has been provided, however, the summary of events below only relates to the matters relevant to the current complaint. This investigation has not considered previous complaints, or events and complaints made after January 2023 which have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.

Summary of events

On 17 June 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident in relation to concerns he had raised about a member of staff. The resident called the staff member a liar and other slurs. The landlord said it had made a reasonable adjustment so that a different member of staff would assist him. The resident could make a complaint, but he would need to say what he alleged with evidence to support his claims. It was concerned that its relationship with him was damaged, and it wanted to support him with any mental health needs he might have. It also advised that he could obtain advice from this Service if needed.
The landlord emailed the police on 25 July 2022 after the resident reported that his neighbour had stolen a bicycle from another resident, and that he had reported this to the police. The landlord said the resident had also reported the neighbour to it for drug dealing. The police replied the following day and said they had received a 999 call, however when they attended they believed a civil dispute had occurred and there was no crime. The police also said they would speak to the resident about his allegations.
On 5 September 2022 the resident called the landlord and reported ASB issues being caused by the same neighbour. He said his neighbours were drug addicts and were using drugs at their property, they stole bicycles and shopping trollies, and they shouted abuse at him. As a result, he wanted the landlord to evict them. The landlord’s note of the call said it advised him about its noise app which he could use to gather evidence, but the resident said he was not going to write things down or do the landlord’s job for it. The landlord completed a risk assessment and opened an ASB case.
The landlord emailed the police on 7 September 2022 to ask if it had any information regarding the resident’s reports. It replied that it would visit the resident. On the same day the landlord called the neighbour to discuss the allegations. The landlord’s notes say the neighbour denied the allegations and made counter allegations about the resident, including that he attached defamatory signs to her bicycle and a trolly, which she said she had its owner’s permission to use. The Ombudsman has been provided with photographs of these signs.
On 9 September 2022 the landlord emailed the resident, saying it had spoken to the neighbour and giving an account of its conversation. It also told him about the counter allegations made and warned him that if it received any further ASB reports it would have to start to investigate his behaviour in line with its policy. It also warned him about his use of language when referring to members of its staff.
The landlord emailed the police for an update on 15 September 2022 and wrote to the resident saying it was concerned that he had blocked its emails. It repeated the contents of its email and letter of 9 September 2022, and asked if it could visit him on 30 September 2022 to work with him and discuss any support needs.
The resident contacted this Service, and the Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 23 September 2022 asking it to raise a stage 1 complaint about the resident’s neighbour dealing drugs, threatening people, and having stolen a bicycle from another resident. He said he wanted the neighbours evicted and that the landlord had not done its job and had said it was a police matter. He also wanted the landlord to repair a fence near the property and made negative comments about members of the landlord’s staff.
On 28 September 2022 the landlord’s notes say that it had not had a response from the resident, and believed he was continuing to block its emails. It also said the resident had reported more drug activity, but that he had refused to report this to the police. The landlord emailed the police the same day to chase an update. The landlord attempted to visit the resident on 30 September 2022, but its notes say the resident refused access or to rearrange the appointment.
The landlord emailed the resident on 30 September 2022 to acknowledge his stage 1 complaint made via this Service. It said his complaint was about its handling of reports of ASB, theft and a broken fence. It said it would like to visit him to discuss his complaint and find a way forward to repair its relationship with him. However, it also warned him about his “sarcastic and abusive tone” in communications. The resident replied and said he had no confidence in the landlord, as he had been reporting the ASB for a decade and nothing had been done. He asked the landlord to arrange a meeting with him and all the other residents to discuss the ASB, and said he wanted the neighbours evicted.
On 4 October 2022 the landlord emailed the resident and said it was not able to meet him and the other residents, as his complaint was separate to his reports of ASB. It explained that it could not evict residents but would have to go to court and obtain an order from a judge after presenting evidence to do this. It also offered again to meet with him to discuss his complaint. The resident replied the same day and said he considered it a waste of his time to meet with the landlord as it had constantly ignored him. He asked for a final resolution letter so that he could bring his complaint to the Ombudsman.
The police emailed the landlord on 5 October 2022 saying they were aware of an incident, but the resident had not made a complaint and so there was nothing for the police to investigate. They said the resident had said he wanted the landlord to take tenancy action. The landlord’s note also says that the resident had not reported drug dealing to the police.
On 11 October 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident for an extension of time. It said it was waiting for information from other agencies before it could provide its stage 1 response, which it would do by 28 October 2022.
The landlord visited the neighbour on 17 October 2022. Its note says the neighbour gave a different account to the resident’s and provided completed diary sheets. She said they would be keeping away from the resident.
On 20 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to chase his complaint response. He said he had been waiting too long and had “zero confidence” in the landlord. The landlord replied and said it had sent him a letter about the extension of time, in line with its complaints policy, and that it would respond by 28 October 2022. The resident also emailed the housing minister that day about his complaint.
The landlord reviewed the ASB case on 21 October 2022 and decided to close it as it had not received any evidence. It had offered to visit the resident which was declined and advised him to gather evidence which was also declined. It had spoken to the neighbours twice and noted counter allegations against the resident. It said it had written to the resident to inform him.
On 27 October 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response letter by post and email, in which it:
1. Confirmed the complaint came via this Service, and it had extended its timeframe to reply.
2. Said regarding the resident’s complaint about a damaged fence that it had inspected the fence that week and it was not damaged. It said it was a windbreak, that it did not need repairing and that the pathway was designed to allow access. It also said the resident had exhausted its complaints procedure about this issue in 2019. The response contained a photograph of the fence.
3. Quoted an email the resident had sent to it to report evidence of drug use, being cigarette butts found outside on 30 May 2022 (the landlord has not provided this email to this Service.) It raised an ASB case, as the resident had told it about his PTSD, and spoke to the neighbour. It quoted a second email from the resident (not provided) where he said there had been no further issues. Regarding drug dealing, the landlord and the police had investigated this and spoken to the neighbour, and were satisfied no dealing was taking place. It confirmed the resident had not reported this to the police when it would be a police matter.
4. Said it had spoken to the police about the alleged theft of a bicycle the resident had complained about. The alleged perpetrator was not one of its tenants and, if they were, it would need the victim to report the matter also. In the circumstances, it was a police matter.
5. Pointed out that it seemed its relationship with the resident had broken down. It wanted to work with him to repair this, but he would need to improve the way he communicated with the landlord and his behaviour would need to change.
6. Confirmed how he could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied, and that he could approach this Service, acknowledging that he already had.
The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 9 November 2022 by email. The landlord wrote to him on 15 November 2022 to acknowledge the escalation and advise that the resident had not told it which parts of its response he was not happy with or why. It said it would like to visit him on 25 November 2022 to discuss his complaint and to better understand his concerns and mental health issues. It also warned him about his tone and accusations he had made about a member of its staff, and that if this continued it may need to refer to its unacceptable behaviour policy.
The resident and the landlord exchanged emails between 16 and 24 November 2022 about the visit. The landlord confirmed the date and time and agreed to the resident’s request to record the meeting. Following the visit, on 25 November 2022, the resident emailed the landlord. He said he had been “coerced and bullied into accepting a visit” and that he did not want the landlord’s staff inside the property. The resident made allegations about the members of staff having interrogated him. The landlord replied to say he had not been bullied and had agreed to the visit, but that it would investigate his other allegations. On 27 November 2022 the resident emailed the landlord again and said its members of staff had tried to push their way into his home. He said he had recorded this on CCTV, however no evidence of this has been provided to this Service by the resident.
On 2 December 2022 the landlord provided its stage 2 response by email and letter, in which it said:
1. As the resident’s request to escalate did not say why he was dissatisfied it had tried to arrange to visit him. When it did so on 25 November 2022 the visit did not go well. It disputed that he had been bullied into the visit and pointed out that he had agreed to it. It gave an account of the visit and that it had to be terminated. This meant the landlord was “no nearer to understanding [his] PTSD, how it affects [him], and how [it] may be able to support” him.
2. He had made “unfounded and abusive allegations and remarks” about a member of its staff. It referred to its letter of June 2022 and that it could only investigate complaints about members of staff if some evidence were provided, but the resident had not done this.
3. Regarding his complaints about ASB, its response remained the same as its stage 1 response. This was because the resident had not provided any evidence and it had been unable to discuss the complaint with him. It also cautioned him about displaying posters to make allegations about his neighbours which could in itself be ASB. It confirmed how to report ASB.
4. While it had tried to improve its relationship with him it was disappointed it had not been able to. It suggested he “take time to reflect on your tenancy and decide whether your apparent hatred for us as a landlord is something you want to continue with if it is making you so upset and angry.” However it said it was happy to consider mediation with the resident.
5. How to contact the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

The resident emailed the landlord the same day and said he completely rejected its response. On 13 December 2022 he emailed the landlord again and said he had brought his complaint to this Service.
On 15 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and said he had not had an outcome to his complaint about the neighbour causing ASB. He emailed again on 3 January 2023 to chase a response. The landlord replied on 10 January 2023 to refer the resident to its stage 2 response. It also said he could report ASB as it had advised previously.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

The Ombudsman’s role is not to determine whether ASB took place, but to consider whether the landlord followed its policy, and if its actions were fair in all the circumstances. The resident made several reports of ASB to the landlord. As stated in the landlord’s stage 1 response, on 30 May 2022 the resident reported ASB, and it had spoken to the neighbour. It said it took into account the resident’s PTSD when it decided to open an ASB case, in line with its policy. It quoted a second email, undated, in which the resident said the issue was resolved.
Following further reports of drug dealing, and the theft of a bicycle, the landlord contacted the police. Under its ASB policy the landlord says it will work with the police, where appropriate, and so it followed its policy in arranging for the police to follow up with the resident.
On 5 September 2022 the landlord opened a new ASB case and completed a risk assessment, in line with its policy. It also advised the resident about its noise app to collect evidence, however the resident refused to do this. Under its policy the landlord should advise on evidence collection and residents are expected to co-operate and collect evidence to assist with the investigation of their ASB case. It was also reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident, who was in the best position to record evidence, to do this and his refusal was unreasonable. Within 2 working days the landlord contacted the police, and discussed the allegations with the neighbour, and responded back to the resident within its 5 working day timeframe under its policy.
Due to its concerns that the resident may have blocked its emails, something the Ombudsman cannot adjudicate on, it wrote to him again and attempted to visit him to discuss his case. The landlord spoke to the neighbour again a second time, and received a response from the police in which they said the resident had not pursued a complaint. Considering the nature of the resident’s ASB reports, his unwillingness to collect or provide evidence, his unwillingness to co-operate with the police, and there being no further or independent evidence, the landlord’s decision to close the ASB case on 21 October 2022 was reasonable. The landlord followed its ASB policy and there was no maladministration.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about staff conduct

The resident has made multiple negative comments about members of landlord staff, which have not all been detailed in this report. The landlord wrote to him on 17 June 2022 and explained how he could make a complaint, if he wished, but he would need to explain his complaint and provide supporting evidence, which was a reasonable requirement. It also said it had made a “reasonable adjustment” to change the member of its staff who assisted him. The landlord has confused itself with the term ‘reasonable adjustment’, however it is clear its intention was to resolve or reduce any issues the resident had with that member of staff and its intention was positive.
In his contact with the Ombudsman, which was the basis of the stage 1 complaint, the resident also made negative comments about the landlord’s staff, but made no specific complaint which could be investigated. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord not to respond to a complaint about staff conduct at stage 1. The landlord did, however, say that it wanted to work with him to address the breakdown in their relationship, if he was able to modify the way in which he spoke about its staff. This was a proactive approach for the landlord to have taken, in trying to mend relationships, whilst also pointing out that it was not acceptable for the resident to continue to direct abuse towards its staff. The provisions of the ASB policy, and prohibition on causing ASB within the tenancy agreement, apply equally to actions directed at its staff as well as other residents.
Following the landlord’s visit on 25 November 2022, the resident made a complaint about members of staff. The landlord correctly agreed to respond to this complaint as part of its stage 2 response, in which it referred to emails it had sent and received from the resident to show that he had agreed to the visit. It also gave an account of the visit from its 2 members of staff, which differed to the resident’s. As the resident had not provided to the landlord any evidence of what allegedly happened during the visit, despite telling it he had CCTV evidence, it was reasonable for the landlord to accept its own staff’s accounts. There was no evidence its staff had breached its professional conduct policy.
The landlord’s approach was consistent, and it referred to its letter of June 2022, that it could only investigate complaints about its staff if some evidence were provided, which was reasonable.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord at all times said that it wanted to work with the resident. It showed an awareness of its duties under the Equality Act 2010 to have due regard to the resident’s vulnerabilities and health conditions. Despite the volume and nature of the resident’s negative comments, slurs and insults directed at the landlord and its staff, it continued to work with him and offered mediation as a way forward. The landlord balanced its approach with correctly pointing out what was not acceptable behaviour and that it could be classed as ASB and may have tenancy consequences. The landlord followed its policies, showed good practice, patience, an open mind, and persistence in trying to resolve the situation. There was no maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the formal complaint

Following contact from this Service the landlord raised and acknowledged a stage 1 complaint on 30 September 2022, within its 5 working day timeframe under its policy. It wrote to the resident on 11 October 2022 to ask to extend its response timeframe as per its policy as it was waiting for responses from other agencies. It is not clear which responses the landlord was waiting for, as the police had already replied to its enquiry, and it should have made this clearer. It provided its stage 1 response within its extended timeframe.
The resident said that he wanted to escalate his complaint on 9 November 2022. Throughout his complaint the resident had asked for a ‘final resolution’ letter, as he had lost confidence in the landlord, however the landlord correctly followed its policy in moving to stage 2 of its process. It acknowledged the escalation within its 5 working day timeframe. However, as it was unclear on what the resident’s stage 2 complaint was about, it arranged to visit him so that it could discuss the complaint which was a positive step to take. It provided its stage 2 response within its 20-working day timeframe.
Following its stage 2 response the resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. However, he also emailed the landlord twice to chase a response to his ASB complaint. On 10 January 2023 the landlord correctly followed its policy by refusing to record a new complaint, as the matter had already exhausted its complaints policy, and informed the resident that the complaint was with this Service. There was no maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
1. Handling of reports of ASB.
2. Response to the resident’s complaint about staff conduct.
3. Handling of the formal complaint.

Reasons

There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB as it opened cases, took into account the resident’s vulnerabilities, and investigated his claims. It worked with the police and advised on evidence collection. It followed its ASB policy, and its actions and decision were in line with this and were reasonable.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to complaints about staff conduct as it investigated when a complaint was made. It also appropriately advised the resident on his behaviour and comments made towards its staff, in line with its ASB policy and his tenancy agreement. It worked consistently to try to restore its relationship with him.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling as it followed its policy and the timeframes set out within it. It also correctly used its policy to exclude a further complaint, as the subject of the complaint had already exhausted its complaints process.