Flagship Housing Group Limited (202225326)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225326

Flagship Housing Group Limited

5 June 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 handling of the report of antisocial behaviour (ASB) made about the resident.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2022. The property is a 1-bedroom end-of-terrace house. The landlord is a housing co-operative.
On 18 January 2023, the resident was visited by the landlord, accompanied by a police constable. The visit was not pre-arranged and was made to provide words of advice following reports of ASB made to the landlord about the resident. He was made aware of the behaviour which could be perceived as intimidating, given advice on being mindful of that behaviour, and asked to make no further contact with the neighbours. The landlord acknowledged that the resident was stressed and the situation was not pleasant and it offered support via a referral to counselling. Before ending the visit, it agreed an action plan with the resident on the next steps.
The resident then made multiple calls to the landlord, advising he was unhappy that it had taken action on the reports that were made about him when his tenancy agreement and police record were both clean. He felt he was being accused of being a bad person and the landlord was questioning his character. He wanted to make a complaint about the neighbours for what he felt were malicious reports against him. In response, the landlord provided assurances and explained its obligation to investigate reports it received. The resident was not reassured and made a complaint about his perceived mistreatment on 26 January 2023.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 2 February 2023, it said it understood the resident was frustrated with the claims made against him but it had an obligation to investigate the reports and ensure tenant and community safety. It was confident the report was handled in line with its policy with appropriate action taken. It said the resident’s complaint about the neighbour/s could not be investigated as part of its complaints policy but would be investigated by the relevant department.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 8 February 2023, saying that he knew who had complained about him and it was unjustified. He wanted action to be taken against his neighbour/s for making false reports. He felt the landlord had no right to visit without evidence and that his clean record should have negated the need for an investigation. He said he had made a complaint to the police about the same visit.
In the landlord’s Stage 2 response of 6 March 2023 it said the visit had simply been to make the resident aware of the reports that were made, and to offer words of advice and support to ensure that he and his neighbours could experience peaceful enjoyment of their homes and community. It said that it had reviewed the reports that were made to assess if they were false and/or malicious and found them to have been reasonably made. While it had found no evidence that the reports were malicious, it would keep that under review should future allegations arise.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and contacted the Ombudsman in April 2023, when he advised that he sought an apology and compensation for his stress and anxiety.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised a new complaint with the landlord, which was responded to at stage 1 in May 2024 and is currently being investigated at stage 2. As this complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process it is not considered further in this report (reflected at paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme). If the resident remains dissatisfied following completion of the complaints process, he may contact the Ombudsman again at that time and the matter will be dealt with under a new case reference.

The landlord’s handling of the report of ASB

It is important to note that it is not the role of the Ombudsman to establish the validity of the ASB report made or the motivations of the neighbour/s in making that report. Instead, it is for this Service to assess the landlord’s handling of the report and determine whether it acted in accordance with relevant policies and procedures, and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord will do its best not to interrupt or interfere with his life at home. However, there are some occasions where it will need to access the property, such as visiting to talk about how he is managing his tenancy. It says that 48 hours advance notice will always be given, but in the case of an emergency it might be less than that. It goes on to list the landlord’s expectation on being a good neighbour, and sets out examples of behaviour that it considers to be antisocial, such as ‘behaving in a way which could be intimidating or harassing to others.’
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out how it responds to and handles reports of such behaviour. It states that the aim of its policy is to prevent and minimise instances of ASB and to resolve them as soon as possible through timely and appropriate intervention. It notes that tenants have the right to enjoy their homes without complaints being unreasonably made against them. It goes on to provide a list of examples where it would handle reports under its ASB policy including behaviour which causes intimidation or harassment.
The policy sets out that as part of its handling of ASB reports, the landlord works in partnership with agencies such as the police. It provides suitable support, advice, and signposting. The resolution methods and actions it takes will be proportionate and reasonable to the circumstances of the case, and it will always aim to resolve cases as early as possible to prevent escalation and ongoing effect to victims. It will close cases once the behaviour has been resolved.
The report the landlord received listed behaviour that met its definition of ASB under its policy and the tenancy agreement. On receipt of this report, the landlord had a contractual obligation to investigate and take appropriate and proportionate action to respond to the concerns raised. This Service has seen evidence of the investigation the landlord carried out to establish that the report was reasonably made. It was therefore appropriate for it to open a case and consider the interventions it should make.
In handling reports of ASB, it is this Service’s expectation and considered good practice that the landlord applies an incremental approach to the measures it takes. One of the first steps is to discuss the reported behaviour/s with the alleged perpetrator and provide words of advice to allow them the chance to modify their behaviour. In this instance, the landlord first attempted to call the resident and left a voicemail for him when it was unable to speak with him. Following this, it visited him, working in partnership with the police, to offer advice and support; which is in line with its policy and procedures. The Ombudsman appreciates the anxiety, consternation, frustration and stress the resident experienced and understands it was not a welcome visit given the nature of the situation.
Following the visit, the landlord adhered to the action plan it had agreed with the resident and the police. It continued to offer support to him, and liaised with the neighbour/s who made the report to monitor the situation. It then closed the case promptly, and advised the resident that it had no further concerns and would not be taking any further action. These actions were taken in line with the landlord’s policy and procedures.
The landlord must respond to reports made by its tenants promptly and impartially. In adherence with its ASB policy, the actions taken by the landlord were to prevent escalation and to reach a resolution as early as possible. However, this Service has not seen evidence that the landlord arranged the visit with its resident prior to attending. While a phone call was made and a voicemail left, there is no information available about whether it advised the resident that the landlord planned to visit.
As set out in the tenancy agreement, 48 hours’ notice should have been given. Based on the information available, the reason for the visit cannot reasonably be concluded as an emergency as there was sufficient time for the landlord to write and advise the resident of its intention to visit. Therefore, while the decision to make the visit was taken in line with the landlord’s policies and procedures, the failure to advise the resident of the visit at least 48 hours in advance was a breach of the tenancy agreement and this Service’s expectations around ASB report handling.
Given the reason for the visit and the presence of the police, its unannounced nature could only have added to the resident’s distress over it. A letter advising the resident of the landlord’s intention to visit in the company of the police would have helped to mentally prepare the resident, and allowed him the opportunity to arrange for someone else to be present to support him should he need it.
Therefore, while the landlord responded in line with its policy and took proactive, proportionate, and solution-focused steps about the report it received, failing to give prior notice of the visit amounts to service failure in its handling of the report. The landlord is therefore ordered to write to the resident with an apology (with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to ensure the apology is sincere and appropriate). It is additionally ordered to pay the resident £100, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, for the poor service, upset, and inconvenience caused by its failure.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy 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 tenant or group of tenants.’ It says a complaint can be made in a number of ways, including by phone.
The policy sets out timeframes for responding to complaints; namely 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. It also states that complaints will be acknowledged at stage 1 within 5 working days of being made. It does not provide a timescale for acknowledgements at escalation to stage 2.
The resident made his complaint on 26 January 2023 and received the landlord’s stage 1 response on 2 February 2023. He escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 8 February 2023 and received the landlord’s stage 2 response on 6 March 2023. The responses were, therefore, issued within the specified timeframes.
However, the contact records show that when the resident contacted the landlord by telephone and said that he wanted to make a complaint on 26 January 2023, the landlord’s call handling staff first told him that there were no grounds for a complaint. The landlord did then log the complaint and advised the correct timescales in the same call, however, it was not appropriate for it to have told the resident that he had no grounds for complaint.
As set out in its complaints policy, the resident had the right to make a complaint about the landlord and its staff. It would then have been a matter for the complaints handler to establish, in line with the landlord’s complaints handling policy, whether the resident’s complaint was valid. The landlord’s call handling staff should not have made this statement that sought to deter the resident from logging new concerns as a complaint.
The Service further notes that the landlord’s complaint policy is silent on the timeframes for an acknowledgement to the resident when a stage 2 escalation is requested. The contact records show that the resident was calling the landlord frequently after requesting the escalation and a call back was not made to him until 8 working days later. The resident had previously been advised call back timeframes of 5 working days and so was reasonably in expectation of a similar turnaround time.
The landlord’s failure to advise clear timeframes for acknowledgement at stage 2, the delayed call back, and the inappropriate statement to the resident about there being no grounds for complaint amount to a service failure in its handling of the associated complaint.
It is therefore ordered to review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its complaints policy, in order to prevent the mistakes in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future. It is further ordered to review its complaint handling policy literature and update it with acknowledgement timeframes for stage 2 escalations. Finally, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 for the upset and confusion caused by its complaint handling failures, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the:
1. Report of ASB made about the resident.
2. Associated formal complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident with an apology (with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to ensure the apology is sincere and appropriate). It should provide this Service with evidence of having done this.
2. Pay directly to the resident (and not offset against any rent arrears) £150 compensation. It should provide this Service with evidence of having done this. The compensation should be paid as follows:
  1. £100 in recognition of the upset, distress, and frustration caused by its handling of the ASB report.
  2. £50 for the upset and confusion caused by its complaint handling failures.
Within 10 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its complaints policy, in order to prevent its poor complaint handling in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future. It should provide evidence to this Service that action has been taken to reduce the likelihood of similar failings.
2. Review its complaints policy literature and update it with acknowledgement timeframes for stage 2 escalations. It should provide this Service with evidence of having done this.