Watford Community Housing Trust (202202141)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202141

Watford Community Housing Trust

24 July 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 response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord, which is a housing association. The tenancy began on 19 July 2021. The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the third floor.
The landlord’s records show that the resident has learning difficulties. She has also advised the landlord that she suffers with anxiety and depression.
During 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report a number of issues relating to Antisocial Behaviour (ASB). In January, February, April, June, July and September the resident contacted the landlord to report concerns about how residents were disposing of their rubbish. On 11 April the resident also reported that residents were spitting from their windows and/or the communal balcony. On 3 May she contacted this Service to report that people were smoking in communal areas and trying to gain access to the block by picking the locks.
On 30 June the landlord logged an ASB report from the resident about her neighbour using drugs and ringing the bell in the early hours of the morning. She contacted this Service in April 2023 to report that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s general response to her reports of ASB.
The resident contacted this Service on 3 May 2022. She said she had tried unsuccessfully to contact the landlord to report people smoking in communal areas and trying to pick the locks to access the block. She asked us to assist her with the complaints process and we wrote to the landlord accordingly.
On 16 May 2022 the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response, as follows:
1. In February it issued letters to the resident’s block about the correct way to dispose of rubbish. It also reminded residents of the terms of their tenancy agreements.
2. It had raised an ASB case to log the resident’s complaint about smoking and people trying to gain access to the block.
3. It regularly inspected the block and during its last visit on 26 April everything was satisfactory, including the communal doors.
4. On 12 May it issued a letter to the block to ask residents not to dispose of cigarette butts in the communal areas. It also invited residents to provide further information about people trying to tamper with the doors.
5. It advised the resident she could appeal within 10 working days and set out what information she needed to provide to support her review request.
On 24 May 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the process because she was dissatisfied with its response.
Following intervention from this Service the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 22 August 2022. It noted that the resident had not provided her reasons for her escalation request and/or provided any new evidence. The stage 2 response repeated the content of the stage 1 response in relation to block inspections and disposal of rubbish.
In April 2023 the resident contacted this Service to express her ongoing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB. In an email to this Service on 2 July 2024 the landlord confirmed that the resident continued to make complaints about people smoking and leaving rubbish in communal areas. The resident has been approved for a management move and the landlord is in the process of identifying a suitable property.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy says that:
1. It will assess all logged incidents and apply a risk category. Low category cases include environmental issues, neighbour disputes and nuisance and will respond within 5 working days.
2. On receiving a report of ASB it will respond and provide advice on next steps.
3. It will create and agree action plans.
4. It will keep residents informed of progress.
Its persistent or unreasonable behaviour policy aims to assist it to manage resident’s expectations. Unreasonable persistence can refer to residents who make contact persistently on the same issue. It will consider taking appropriate action when someone repeatedly raises the same issue. It will always say what action it is taking and why.
Its customer feedback policy and procedure (complaints policy) says:
1. It will issue stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days.
2. Reasons it may not accept a request to escalate to stage 2 include if the appeal is not sufficiently detailed or clear and/or no new evidence is submitted beyond which has already been considered.
3. It will issue stage 2 complaint responses within 15 working days from the date it is clear of the reasons to escalate the complaint. In exceptional circumstances it may take up to 20 working days. If it cannot reply within this timescale it will apologise, explain the position and provide a new date.

Reports of ASB

The resident emailed the landlord on 5 January 2022 to report that residents were not disposing of their rubbish correctly, which was unhygienic and causing a fire risk.
There is no evidence that the landlord replied to the resident which was inappropriate. Consequently the resident was caused inconvenience, time and trouble when she contacted this Service for assistance. After we contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf, it emailed her on 24 January 2022. It confirmed it had raised a complaint about rubbish not being disposed of correctly.
An internal email was sent by the landlord on the same day, 24 January, to request that a letter be sent to the whole block regarding disposal of rubbish. A further email, sent on 27 January, confirmed that a visit was planned for the following day and that a letter would then be issued.
Other than the 2 internal emails set out above there are no records relating to the resident’s report. Therefore, there is no evidence that the landlord followed its ASB policy including agreeing action plans and keeping the resident informed of progress. This caused distress to the resident because she could not be confident that the landlord had taken appropriate action to address the issue.
On 2 and 3 February 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to report that residents were still not disposing of their rubbish correctly. The landlord appropriately replied on 3 February to acknowledge receipt of the complaint. During further correspondence between the landlord and resident on 7 February the resident confirmed that the issue had been resolved.
On 6 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to report that she was being bullied and/or harassed by her neighbour. It replied to say it would speak to her neighbour and that if she felt threatened in future she should call the police. There is no evidence that the landlord logged an ASB case, followed its ASB policy, or provided a further update to the resident which was a failure. The landlord’s inaction further eroded the landlord/resident relationship and caused distress to the resident.
On 11 and 16 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to report that there were cigarette butts on the floor of the communal area and people smoking in hallways. The landlord replied on 16 March to acknowledge the report however, it did not set out what action it would take which was inappropriate causing distress to the resident. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it logged an ASB complaint in line with its ASB policy.
The resident was caused inconvenience, time and trouble because on 21 March 2022 she emailed the landlord to ask why it had not responded to her complaint. The landlord replied the following day, 22 March, to say it was visiting the block that morning and would come to see the resident. There are no records to show that it did so which was inappropriate.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 April 2022 to report that residents were spitting from their windows and/or the balcony. She described the behaviour as “vile, disgusting and offensive.” She sent a further email to the landlord on 14 April to report an issue with the disposal of rubbish in the block which was causing a fire hazard. On 14 April the landlord wrote to the block regarding allegations of ASB in the communal stairwells and communal areas to remind them of the terms of the tenancy agreement. While this was an appropriate response there is no evidence that the landlord logged an ASB complaint and followed the process set out in its ASB policy which was inappropriate.
The resident’s lack of confidence in the landlord was evident when she contacted this Service, rather than the landlord, on 3 May 2022 to report new issues of ASB. She reported that people were smoking in the communal area and trying to access the block. Following intervention from this Service the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge her report. She replied to the email on the same day to say that it was not doing anything about the ASB she had reported.
On 12 May 2022 the landlord issued a letter to the block to try to gather further evidence in relation to the smoking and access issue. It said it was “difficult to investigate further without evidence” and hoped the letter would assist. Sending the letter as part of its investigation was a reasonable step. However, it would also have been reasonable for the landlord to consider taking a more proactive role. This could have included increasing its visits to the block for a period of time and/or door knocking neighbouring properties. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it logged an ASB complaint or that it followed the process set out in its ASB policy.
The landlord’s ASB records show that following receipt of the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 24 May 2022 it opened a case about rubbish/litter on 14 June. The evidence says that an action plan was updated on 14 June. However, this investigation has not seen a copy of an action plan and has not seen evidence of what was agreed which is a record keeping failure. Furthermore, there is no evidence that a risk assessment was carried out. The records show that the case was closed on 14 July as no further complaints received.
The landlord logged an ASB case on 30 June 2022 in response to the resident’s reports that a neighbour was causing ASB by using drugs and having visitors who rang the bell in the early hours of the morning. The ASB records show that the resident was interviewed on 14 July and an action plan updated. This investigation has not seen a copy of the file note of the interview, action plan or the actions agreed within it which is a record keeping failure. The category logged for the complaint was “higher” and the risk level recorded as “0”.
There is no evidence that a risk assessment was carried out which is particularly concerning given the nature of the complaint and that the landlord knew the resident had a disability. Furthermore, the landlord failed to have regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
The records logged that the resident was updated on 25 July and 8 August 2022. However, there are no file notes or copies of emails which is a record keeping failure. The case was closed 8 August 2022 because the resident did not make any further reports.
On 5 and 10 July 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to report that a neighbour was leaving black bin bags out on the communal walkway. There is no evidence that the landlord responded which was inappropriate.
On 19 August 2022 this Service wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf to provide further information on her stage 2 complaint. We confirmed that the resident remained concerned about smoking and disposal of rubbish in communal areas. The resident also raised 2 new issues relating to communal drug use and harassment by other residents.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 22 August 2022 said it had emailed the resident on 25 May to ask her reasons for her escalation request and had not received anything new.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) says that where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, and a stage 1 response has already been issued, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint.
On 19 August 2022 we advised the landlord that the resident had raised 2 new issues relating to ASB. Given that the resident did not raise these issues at stage 1 it is understandable that the landlord may not have felt it was reasonable to provide a response at stage 2. However, if that were the case it should have raised a fresh stage 1 complaint to consider these issues and explained to the resident that it had done so. That it did not was a failure.
The evidence shows that throughout the period of the complaint the landlord received a high volume of emails from the resident relating to ASB and other tenancy related matters. The landlord’s response to the emails was inconsistent. There are examples where it did not respond at all, some where it opted to deal with the matter on a more informal basis and others where it logged a formal ASB report. When it did open an ASB case it generally failed to comply fully with its ASB policy, often in relation to assessment of risk. Furthermore, there are record keeping failures.
In its email to this Service on 2 July 2024 the landlord said that the resident’s requests and communications were impacting disproportionately on its work. The evidence shows that this has affected the service it has provided to the resident. With regards to the landlord’s persistent or unreasonable behaviour policy, such a policy can be of benefit to both parties as it sets out clear boundaries for contact and communication channels which can make it easier for a landlord to monitor and track complex complaints.
However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered taking action in line with its policy. This is a failure which had a detrimental impact on the resident because it created inconsistencies in its responses. The landlord did not manage her expectations by establishing clear and transparent boundaries about how it would respond to the ASB issues she raised. For example, the landlord may wish to consider allocating a specific point of contact to be contacted via an appropriate method at a reasonable frequency.
The failures identified in this report amount to maladministration because there were failures which adversely affected the resident. The landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £500 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Complaint Handling

The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 3 May 2022. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 16 May in line with its complaints policy.
The Code says that if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1 it must be progressed to stage 2 unless an exclusion ground now applies. In instances where a landlord declines to escalate a complaint it must clearly communicate in writing its reasons for not escalating as well as the resident’s right to approach the Ombudsman about its decision.
On 24 May 2022 the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the process. The landlord replied the following day, 25 May, to ask the resident to provide her reason(s) for her request. She did not respond so it did not escalate the complaint which was in line with its complaints policy and therefore in line with the Code.
However, it failed to write to the resident to set out its reasons for declining to escalate the complaint and/or the resident’s right to approach this Service. That it did not do so was a failure. Furthermore, it caused distress, time and trouble to the resident because she did not know the landlord’s position and had to contact us for assistance to bring her complaint to a resolution.
We wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 19 August 2022 to request that it provide a stage 2 complaint response by 6 September. The response was appropriately provided in time, on 22 August.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. Landlords should have an open mind and use the complaints process to reflect on its practices to identify opportunities for learning and provide redress to residents in the event of a failure. The landlord failed to use the complaints process as an opportunity for learning which was a failure.
The complaint handling failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £600 compensation comprised of:
  1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures in the case.

Recommendation

Review the failures identified in this report and consider whether it needs to change its method of communication with the resident in order to provide a more effective service.