Moat Homes Limited (202227842)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227842

Moat Homes Limited

22 March 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:
1. the resident’s report of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour;
2. the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a shared owner of the property with the landlord. The property is a 3 bedroom detached house.
The evidence shows that the landlord is aware that the resident suffers with her mental health.
The person who is the subject of the resident’s ASB complaints is a neighbour of the resident. The neighbour is also a resident of the landlord. For the purpose of clarity, the neighbour will be referred to as ‘the/her neighbour’ in this report.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that on receipt of ASB reports, it will assess the complainant’s vulnerability and complete a risk assessment. It also states that it will continue to review the risk throughout the investigation of the case and take action if the risk level increases. The policy states that the landlord will agree an action plan with the complainant, keep them updated regularly on the progress of their case and manage their expectations. The policy states it will take prompt action to resolve the ASB case as early as possible. It may provide advice, speak to all parties, use verbal and written warnings, use acceptable behaviour agreements (ABC) or offer mediation. It states that it will also consider enforcement and legal action to address ASB if necessary.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider paying compensation for time and trouble when service failure is identified. It states that in such cases, it may award a goodwill compensation of £150 and that the level of compensation is discretionary.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy, this states it will acknowledge receipt of a complaint within 5 working days. It will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 within 20 working days. It will inform the resident of the reason and agree a new date if it requires longer to respond.

Summary of events

The resident said her family had experienced ASB and harassment from her neighbour since 2018, she had reported the issue to her landlord and the police.
Between March 2022 and June 2022, the resident made numerous reports of ASB from her neighbour. She reported incidents of verbal abuse, threats, intimidation, allegations, and reiterated several times the impact this had on her family. She said she felt threatened and feared for her family’s safety. During that period, the landlord logged and discussed the incidents with the resident and the neighbour. The evidence shows the resident and landlord were in regular contact discussing the case, actions taken, the gathering of evidence, and support available. The landlord worked in partnership with the police. It also reviewed the evidence the resident provided and gave feedback to the resident.
On 3 June 2022, an incident occurred between the resident, her neighbour, and a member of the neighbour’s household. The resident said that during the incident she was verbally and physically assaulted by the neighbour and their partner. She said the police arrested her neighbour for assault. Following the incident the landlord spoke to both residents, it liaised with the police and reviewed the evidence submitted. The landlord and the resident also discussed support services available and ways to improve wellbeing. The resident said she was concerned the neighbour would retaliate and because of this, she did not feel safe in her home. It is unclear whether the landlord responded to the resident’s safety concerns.
On 22 July 2022, the landlord took actions against both parties as a result of their conduct during the early June incident. The landlord issued the resident with a warning letter regarding her behaviour during an incident on 3 June 2022. It said the resident retaliated to her neighbour’s conduct and concluded that her behaviour amounted to causing ASB and impacted on the wider community.
The resident continued to report ASB incidents of the same nature to the landlord between July 2022 and September 2022. During that time, the landlord kept in regular contact with the resident and provided her with updates on the case. On 8 September 2022, the resident reported that a person wearing a black mask approached her home with a box of matches in their hand. The resident reported the incident to the police and the landlord. She also identified the person as a relative of her neighbour. The resident reported feeling “extremely scared” for her safety. As a result of the incident, the landlord agreed to provide additional security to the resident by installing extra locks and a fireproof letter box. The landlord agreed that the ASB was escalating, it liaised with the police and escalated the ASB case to its specialist team.
The resident made further reports of ASB of the same nature to the landlord between October 2022 and December 2022. The evidence indicates that the landlord logged the reports and discussed the issues with both parties.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 18 January 2023. It acknowledged receipt of the complaint on the same day. The complaint was about the landlord’s handling of her ASB case. She said:
1. In December 2022, the landlord discussed applying for an injunction against her neighbour due to their conduct.
2. On 18 January 2023, the landlord contacted the resident after reviewing her ASB case. It informed the resident that her neighbour had made counter allegations about her and provided evidence to support their claims. She said the landlord refused to share the allegations made against her and informed her of its plan to issue her with a notice of seeking possession (NOSP).
3. The resident denied any wrongdoing. She said that when the landlord reviewed the case, it had not reviewed all the evidence she had sent since the ASB started.
4. Her family was “put through hell” and she was worried they were about to lose their home.
On 23 January 2023, the landlord completed an internal review into the ASB case involving the resident and her neighbour, it then shared the outcome with the resident. It said it reviewed the evidence and concluded that, overall, the evidence did not support that the neighbour caused ASB to the resident. It also shared that after considering the neighbour’s allegations against the resident, it concluded that the resident had caused harassment and distress to her neighbour. The landlord said it considered the resident’s behaviour unacceptable and would seek to obtain an injunction against her for the harassment of her neighbour. The landlord shared a list of the resident ‘s behaviour, which it advised her to address.
The landlord contacted the resident on 23 January 2023 to check on her wellbeing. The resident said, “she felt she was fighting for her life” and was not sleeping or eating. The landlord reassured the resident that “there would be a long process before there was any risk to losing her home”. The resident explained that the landlord informed her before Christmas that it would apply for an injunction against her neighbour. It then told her in January 2023, that it was seeking possession of her home. The resident said she had been upset and could not understand how the landlord came to that decision.
On 30 January 2023, the resident wrote a lengthy email to the landlord in response to the letter it sent to her on 23 January 2023. She reiterated what she mentioned in her stage 1 complaint and added some details to her comments. She said the landlord did not investigate her ASB case in keeping with its policies. She disputed the landlord’s statements and the allegations made against her. She asked the landlord to review the evidence she had previously provided. She said the landlord had not given her the opportunity to challenge the allegations made against her. She denied that the police were investigating her for harassment and racially motivated incidents. She pointed out that during a conversation with the landlord in January 2023, it said that it would issue her with a NOSP. However, the letter she had received said the landlord would now be seeking an injunction against her.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 February 2023, she asked the landlord to respond to her complaint.
On 8 February 2023, the landlord informed the resident that it had asked an external agency to review the management of the ASB case between her and her neighbour.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 March 2023. It said:
1. It had concluded that it had not followed its ASB policy when it informed the resident it would issue her with a NOSP and it had no record of that discussion with the resident. It reassured the resident that it had not started legal proceedings against her and apologised for the confusion.
2. The ASB case between the resident and her neighbour had been referred to an external agency for review.
3. It apologised for the delay responding to her complaint dated 30 January 2023 and explained the delays were due to staff changes. It said it could not comment of the actions of some specific staff members as they no longer worked for the landlord.
4. The landlord said it would contact the local authority in regard to the resident’s housing application.
5. It provided contact details of support services.
6. It apologised for the distress caused to the family and offered £150 in compensation.
The resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 21 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged her request on 27 March 2023. The resident said that she was seeking higher compensation. She said she also wanted the landlord to buy her shared ownership property and support her to be rehoused. The resident explained that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response because:
1. She had not been confused about what the landlord said in January 2023 about seeking an injunction against her for harassing her neighbour.
2. She disputed that staff changes were a reasonable explanation for not responding to her complaints. She said that the complaint she sent on 18 January 2023, remained unanswered and she felt the landlord had ample time to investigate and respond. She added that the landlord had failed to keep her updated.
3. The landlord told her on 8 September 2022 that because of the level of harassment she was experiencing, the ASB specialist team would take over the investigation of the case. She said that 5 months later, the harassment had not been resolved and instead she was accused of something she had not done.
4. The level of compensation and apology did not reflect the length of time the issue affected her family and the impact it had. The resident said she took time off work and the issue had impacted on her mental health. She added that she had been left in fear of losing her home. She said she had lost trust in the landlord.
5. She spent considerable time and effort gathering evidence, contacting the landlord and seeking a resolution to her situation.
In April 2023, the external agency issued the report of its findings into its review of the landlord’s management of the ASB case. The review highlighted some good practice on the part of the landlord such as partnership working, issuing warning letters, and logging of the ASB reports. It also concluded that the landlord could have taken a more robust approach to problem solving and seeking a resolution to the ASB. It added that the landlord did not show it carried out regular case reviews with clearly defined outcomes. It concluded that the landlord’s IT system made it difficult to understand what happened over time. It also said that it could not identify the landlord’s decision making to explain its intention of taking enforcement action against the resident in January 2023.
Overall, it said it would have been helpful for the landlord to adopt a solution focused approach, act promptly to tenancy breaches, and maintain a good oversight throughout the case.
The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 27 April 2023. It was as follows:
1. It confirmed that it would not pursue the legal action mentioned in its letter dated 23 January 2023. It apologised for the distress this had caused to the resident.
2. Following the resident’s feedback, it had passed the ASB case to an external specialist for review. It said the review had identified some failures on its part in the management of the ASB case. The review said the landlord had not taken proactive action to deal with the ASB and had failed to effectively communicate with the resident. The landlord also shared additional failings identified by the review such as communication, record keeping, and decision making.
3. The landlord provided the resident with contact details for support services.
4. The landlord said if the resident decided to sell her home, it would waive its sales fees to support the resident.
5. It apologised for its failings and offered to pay £1,500 to the resident. It said its offer was made up of:
  1. £1,000 to reflect the impact its failings had on the resident and her family. It said it also reflected the distress caused;
  2. £300 for the inconsistency of the management of her ASB case;
  3. £200 for its failures in complaint handling.

Post internal complaint

On 1 May 2023, the resident informed the landlord she was dissatisfied with its stage 2 response. She said she was pleased that the landlord acknowledged its failing in managing her ASB case and the impact to her family. She said the greatest impact had been the way the landlord managed the case, especially its threats of legal actions against her. She disputed the conclusion of the ASB review that she was “a perpetrator as well as a victim”. She acknowledged that the landlord could not buy back her home and asked its reasons for not considering her case as exceptional. She asked for the landlord to carry out a review of its stage 2 response.
On 12 May 2023, the landlord responded to the resident and reiterated that it had upheld her complaint. It also repeated its apology to the resident for its failings and the impact on her family. It explained that it could not share the ASB review report with the resident because it contained information on third parties. It clarified its position and the criteria for buying back shared ownership properties and advised the resident on her options for rehousing. The landlord reiterated the offer of redress it made at stage 2. It also acknowledged that its failings caused the resident to lose trust and confidence in the landlord. It said it was committed to rebuild their relationship and offered to organise mediation between itself and the resident.
On 17 May 2023, the resident accepted the landlord’s offer of compensation and agreed to take part in mediation. The landlord said the mediation took place in November 2023. The resident informed this office in March 2024 that she did not feel the mediation had worked. It is unclear whether the resident had shared this view with the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman recognises that the situation has been difficult and caused significant distress to the resident. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact of the failings and ASB on her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Unlike a court we cannot establish what caused a health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim with an insurer or through the courts. The resident has the option to seek further legal advice if she wishes to pursue this concern. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

ASB

The Ombudsman understands that the resident has experienced ASB from her neighbour for some time. The Ombudsman recognises that the situation has been distressing for the resident and her family. She reported spending time and effort raising and pursuing these matters, she also said the issues impacted on her health and wellbeing. It may assist to explain that the Ombudsman’s role is not to decide whether ASB occurred, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports reasonably and in accordance with its policies and procedures.
The resident made a complaint to this Service in March 2022. The complaint was about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB from her neighbour. A determination of case reference number 202113122 was issued on 13 July 2022. The Ombudsman determined the landlord had made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily. Our investigation of the current complaint is about the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports from the same neighbour. The investigation focuses on reports of ASB since March 2022 rather than revisiting earlier incidents which have already been considered.
Incidents of ASB can have a significant and long lasting impact on residents. Such cases can also take time to investigate and resolve. In this case, the evidence shows that the landlord kept in contact with the resident. It gave the resident some updates and reviewed the evidence she had submitted. The landlord also logged the ASB reports, discussed the matter with the parties involved and worked in partnership with other agencies. The evidence seen also shows that the landlord investigated the resident’s reports. For instance, when the resident and the neighbour were involved in an incident in June 2022, the landlord logged the incidents, liaised with the police, reviewed the evidence submitted by all parties and took proportionate actions with both parties. While those actions were reasonable from the landlord and in keeping with its policy, there were also failings in the landlord’s management of the case.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will agree an action plan with the complainant. It is standard practice for a landlord to discuss with a resident what proposed actions are taking place to alleviate fears and provide some reassurance that they are being taken seriously. It is also essential to review an action plan at regular intervals to measure the impact of the actions taken and agree on what to do next. In this case, while it is recognised that the landlord provided the resident with some updates and logged the reports, it did not show that it agreed an action plan with the resident. The lack of an action plan made it difficult to keep an oversight of the case and understand the outcome the parties aimed to achieve.
Furthermore, the landlord’s ASB policy states that it will assess the complainant’s vulnerability. It is acknowledged that the case has been under investigation for some time. It is also recognised that the landlord may have carried out an assessment of the resident’s vulnerability earlier in the investigation. Nevertheless, its policy also states that it will continue to review the risk assessment throughout the investigation. It would therefore have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have reviewed the risk assessment between March 2022 and May 2023.
However, there was no evidence that the landlord reviewed the risk assessment as per its policy during that period. Such assessments enable landlords to understand the impact the ASB has on a resident. When reviewing the vulnerability risk assessment, the landlord can consider the cumulative impact of ASB over time. If suitable, it can then take reasonable and proportionate actions to manage the risks. The resident shared several times with the landlord that the situation was impacting on her mental health. It is acknowledged that the landlord subsequently provided her with details of support providers. While this was appropriate, the landlord did not show it reviewed or carried out a vulnerability risk assessment. This would have been in keeping with its policy and could have help the landlord to identify any additional actions to manage the assessed risks.
When on 8 September 2022, the resident saw a masked person approaching her home with a box of matches in their hand, she reported the matter to the landlord and the police. She also said the person was a relative of her neighbour. At that point, the landlord acknowledged that the level of ASB had escalated and it referred the case to its specialist ASB team. It said it discussed the matter with the resident and the police. The evidence does not show what the police shared with the landlord. The resident reiterated how unsafe she felt in her home because of the harassment she felt from her neighbour.
Following this incident and at the resident’s request, the landlord agreed to install extra security to the resident’s home. While this demonstrated that it took some appropriate actions to support the resident to feel safer in her home, it did not show that it agreed an action plan with the resident or carried out a risk assessment . It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to review the risks and their impacts on the resident at this point. This would have guided the landlord to what other actions were appropriate, such as considering an urgent move to keep the family safe. This action plan would have reassured the resident she had been heard and actions were taken to resolve the matter. While it was appropriate for the landlord to take action such as installing the additional locks to make the situation safer, it did not show what other solutions it had considered, if any. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explore and document all the options it considered to resolve the matter.
By its own admission, the landlord failed to follow its ASB policy when it informed the resident it was issuing her with a NOSP and then told her it was taking an injunction against her. The evidence shows that landlord sent a letter to the resident on 23 January 2023 to inform her it would seek to obtain an injunction against her for the harassment of her neighbour. The landlord spoke to the resident on the same day to reassure her this was not the case. It was reasonable for the landlord to promptly recognise the mistake. However, the resident believed that she may lose her home and was facing legal action, which caused her significant distress. The evidence shows that the landlord could not evidence how it came to decide that it would take legal action against the resident. It could not explain to the resident how the failing occurred, it said this was because the staff involved had since left.
In this case, the landlord listed the allegations against the resident, it did not show how it investigated the reports or how any evidence supported the claims. The evidence seen did not show that the landlord had satisfied itself the threshold had been met to take enforcement action. It is recognised that the landlord acknowledged its failings and apologised to the resident at both stages of her complaint, this was reasonable for the landlord to do.
In February 2023, the landlord asked an external agency to review the ASB case between the resident and the neighbour. It is accepted that it can be useful to get a new perspective on an ASB case especially when it spans a significant period. It was therefore reasonable and good practice from the landlord to organise a review of its management of the case.
While the review identified some good practice in the landlord approach to the ASB case, it also identified some failings. The evidence shows that the landlord acknowledged the failings identified in the review. It also shared some of the findings with the resident at stage 2 of the complaint. It acknowledged its failings to keep appropriate records, to take prompt actions and make decisions. While the records show the resident and landlord were in regular contact, the landlord said it that had not been enough, and it had also failed to communicate effectively with resident. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failings to the resident. The resident said she was pleased that the landlord recognised what went wrong and how it impacted on her family.
The resident contacted the landlord in May 2023. While she was satisfied the landlord acknowledged its failings, she also wanted to challenge some of the content of the stage 2 response. The landlord responded within 2 weeks and clearly explained its reasons for reaching its conclusion at stage 2 and answered the resident’s new queries. It provided a clear and reasonable explanation as why it could not share the full review of the ASB case. It also offered to take part in mediation with the resident to rebuild their relationship. This was good practice from the landlord, it showed its commitment to put things right and that it considered its relationship with the resident important and worth repairing.
Overall, the landlord logged all the resident’s ASB reports, it discussed what happened with all parties, it reviewed the evidence submitted and took some actions such as issuing warning letters. The landlord also took appropriate action to make the resident feel safer in her home. It recognised when things went wrong, apologised to the resident, and took action to understand how the failings occurred. It was proactive in referring the case to an external agency to review its management of the case, this was good practice.
However, failings in the landlord’s management of the ASB have also been identified. The landlord could have done more to explore what actions were available to resolve the case. It failed to fully implement its ASB policy. For instance, it did not show that it agreed action plans with the resident or reviewed the risks presented to her. The evidence shows that the landlord’s failings caused significant distress to the resident, especially when it said that it would issue her with a NOSP and seek to obtain an injunction against her. These actions significantly damaged the landlord and resident relationship.
It is acknowledged that the landlord recognised its failings at both stages of the complaint. It apologised to the resident and offered to pay £1,300 in compensation. It said this was to reflect the impact its failings had on the resident and her family. This was in keeping with its compensation policy. It was also in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (published on our website) which suggests similar awards for cases where the Ombudsman has found that there has been maladministration by the landlord which adversely affected the resident. The Ombudsman would have found maladministration but for the remedy offered by the landlord. The landlord’s total offer reflected the failings identified, therefore the Ombudsman determined that, in all circumstances of the case, the level of compensation paid was reasonable redress.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy. It states it will acknowledge receipt of a complaint within 5 working days and will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 18 January 2022. In keeping with its policy, the landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day.
However, when the resident did not get a response to her complaint, she contacted the landlord and repeated her reasons for making the complaint. She also contacted the landlord 3 days later asking for a response. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 March 2023. It is recognised that the landlord considered the resident made her stage 1 complaint on 30 January 2023. However, the evidence shows that the resident made the complaint on 18 January 2023, and the landlord was aware of that fact. The landlord responded to her stage 1 complaint 29 days outside its published time frame. It failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s policy says that it will contact the resident if it cannot respond to a complaint within its published time frame. It is acknowledged that the landlord said the delay was because of staffing issues however, the landlord did not show that it contacted the resident about the delay or to agree a new date to respond. This caused inconvenience to the resident who had to keep contacting the landlord seeking an answer to her complaint.
It is recognised that the landlord acknowledged its failings, it apologised to the resident and offered to pay £200 compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident. This was in keeping with its compensation policy. The level of compensation offered by the landlord was also in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance which suggests similar awards where the Ombudsman has found that there has been a service failure by the landlord, which had an impact on the resident but was short in duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. The Ombudsman would have found service failure but for the remedy offered by the landlord, therefore the Ombudsman determined that, in all the circumstances of the case, the level of compensation paid was reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered a sum in redress to the resident prior to investigation, which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, resolved the complaint about its handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered a sum in redress to the resident prior to investigation, which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, resolved the complaint about its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to manage the ASB case in line with its policy. The landlord also failed to take prompt action to resolve the ASB, communicate effectively with the resident and evidence its decision making. It is acknowledged that the landlord accepted its failings and apologised to the resident. It also offered reasonable redress to the resident to reflect its failings in the handling of the ASB case.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint within its published time frame. It also failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and failed to agree a new date to respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised to the resident and offered reasonable redress to the resident to reflect its failings in the handling of her complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

The landlord is to pay the resident the compensation of £1,500, as offered at stage 2, if it has not already been received by the resident.