Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Karibu Community Homes Limited (202301362)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301362

Karibu Community Homes Limited

12 September 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, a house owned by the landlord.
  2. In 2017, the resident reported issues with a neighbour, who will be referred to as “Neighbour A” in this report. Neighbour A is the tenant of a different landlord, which will be referred to as the “Housing Association” in this report. She reported further problems with Neighbour A to it in October 2022.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of ASB on 2 December 2022 and provided more information on 13 December 2022. On 5 October 2022, she had told it that issues with Neighbour A had started again. It later asked if the Housing Association had agreed any steps with her in relation to her reports. She said that it told her that it would assign somebody to her case, but nothing had progressed.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process on 4 January 2023. It said that it was sorry she felt that it had not offered her the level of service she expected in relation to the ASB. It explained that it takes neighbourhood cohesion seriously and often works with partner agencies to try and resolve disputes, sometimes using the services of professional mediators. It noted that it had not introduced one of its housing officers to her to manage this. It stated that it would do this and contact her next week to provide her with further support and help to find a resolution for the issues she reported.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 5 January 2023 as she felt it had not adequately addressed the matters she had raised.
  6. In its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 1 February 2023, the landlord stated that since its stage 1 response it had arranged for a housing officer to visit her at her home. It had offered to contact the Housing Association to support her with the continuing issues with Neighbour A and had explored the possibility of a mutual exchange, but that this had been unsuitable for her. It said that it would continue to search for a suitable mutual exchange for her.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. While the resident reported issues with Neighbour A to the landlord prior to 2022, these did not form part of the period of this complaint. As such, this report has only considered events that occurred from October 2022. Any further mention of the historical matters prior to 2022 is only for context within this report in line with paragraph 42.c, as they were not brought to the landlord a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This is normally within 6 months of the matter arising.

Policies and procedures.

  1. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy sets out its approach to handling reports of ASB. It states that any reported concerns will be considered by its ASB specialist. It will actively encourage the use of mediation between parties at an early stage and will work closely with the mediation service to promote this approach. It will adopt a multi-agency approach when dealing with cases. Where appropriate, it will develop good neighbour agreements to promote safer communities and prevent ASB.
  2. In its ASB policy, the landlord also explains how it will provide support to victims and complainants. It states that it will use an electronic case management system with reporting facilities which will allow it to record and report against a range of performance measures. When it logs a case that requires follow-up action, it will assign a case officer and update the complainant of this. It will provide the complainant with regular updates.
  3. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days and will provide a response with 10 working days of receipt. It will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of a complaint escalation request. It states it will always acknowledge where things have gone wrong and apologise, along with the addition of a variety of remedies like agreeing an action plan, changing policy, or making an offer of compensation.

Antisocial behaviour.

  1. When the dispute between the resident and Neighbour A began in 2017, records provided by the resident show that the Housing Association created a good neighbour agreement between her and Neighbour A to run indefinitely. The landlord’s ASB policy states that its ASB specialist will consider any reported concerns and that it will use an electronic case management system. No evidence has been provided to show that it took either of these steps when she made the report in October 2022. It must be noted however that, as Neighbour A is not the landlord’s tenant it was very limited in the actions it could take in this case and would have to rely heavily on the neighbour choosing to cooperate with it.
  2. On the 2 December 2022, the resident emailed the landlord asking it to call or email her about the ongoing issues with Neighbour A as she had left several messages with the landlord without response. It emailed her and advised that it would put her in touch with a housing officer the following week. She emailed the Housing Association for support on 9 December 2022 as the landlord had not contacted her as stated. Its response to her concerns was poor and it did not follow-up on its suggested course of action.
  3. In her stage 1 complaint, the resident said that she felt she had been let down by the landlord and Housing Association. On 5 October 2022, she told it that harassment from Neighbour A had started again. It asked her for more information and wrote to her on 23 November 2022 asking whether the Housing Association had agreed an action plan with her. She said her case had been delayed because it had left communication with the Housing Association “in the air” and nothing had progressed since it told her it would assign someone to her case. The Housing Association had told her that they had not spoken to the landlord.
  4. In its complaint response, the landlord stated that it was sorry the resident felt that it had not offered her with the level of support she expected. It said that it took neighbourhood cohesion seriously and often worked with partner agencies and other housing providers to try and resolve disputes. It explained that a housing officer managed these issues and noted that it had not introduced one to her. It would have a housing officer contact her the following week to provide further support and work with her and any appropriate partners to seek a resolution. The actions proposed in its response were appropriate, however, its response indicated that it was aware of the actions it should have already been taking and it offered no apology or explanation for its failure to do so.
  5. The resident responded to the landlord on 4 January 2023 to express her dissatisfaction with its complaint response. She said she it had treated her poorly and it spoke of how she felt, not of what its inaction had caused her. She stated it did not address its failures. It called her on 12 January 2023 to discuss the complaint and how she wanted it to support her, which included it communicating with the Housing Association and assisting with arranging a mutual exchange. This was a positive response, and it showed a willingness to provide support to her moving forward, in line with its ASB policy.
  6. The landlord did work to provide a mutual exchange option to the resident on 17 January 2023. The exchange was not suitable for her, but it did keep to the agreement made on 12 January 2023 by doing so. It spoke with her further on 31 January 2023 and noted internally that it would continue to look for internal transfer options for her, along with advising her to use its website to make a transfer application. Also, during the call, she told it that she had felt it had not supported her in dealing with the Housing Association. It agreed to support her future ASB complaints. This was a reasonable approach by the landlord to provide her with more appropriate support going forward.
  7. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord stated that it had reviewed the resident’s original complaint and since responding, it had arranged for a housing officer to visit her at her property and offered to contact the Housing Association to support her with the ongoing issues. It also offered to continue the search for a suitable mutual exchange. It did not acknowledge any of her concerns about its previous lack of support or the delays in providing her with a named housing officer. Its response was brief and lacked any recognition of, or empathy towards, the clear frustration felt by the resident.
  8. In conclusion, there is little evidence to demonstrate that the landlord followed through with its promise to assist the resident. It has provided no evidence of communication with the Housing Association or any alternative partnership working, despite its policy stating that it will adopt a multi-agency approach. It did not appear to hold any records relating to the actions taken by the Housing Association and had to ask the resident to provide information for this. It does not appear to have used a case management system as per its policy and provided little support to the resident until she made a formal complaint. Nonetheless, it would have had limited ability to take any escalated action as it had no control over the neighbour’s behaviour seeing that it has no contractual relationship with the neighbour or their landlord.
  9. The evidence it has provided shows that issues remain ongoing between the resident and Neighbour A with the landlord providing little support to her. Considering the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, a finding of failure is appropriate in this case. This report again reiterates that the landlord is limited in the actions it can take where an alleged perpetrator is not its tenant. The failures identified in this case are regarding the landlord not taking action on promises it made the resident. These are mainly with respect to communicating with the Housing Association and then contacting the resident to advise her about any updates. 

Complaint handling

  1. The resident requested that the landlord log her complaint at stage 1 on 2 December 2022. It responded, stating that it would log her email as a complaint and send an acknowledgment shortly. It emailed her on 5 December 2022 asking for more information before it could log her complaint. She provided this on 13 December 2022, but it has provided no evidence that it acknowledged receipt of this or when it officially logged her complaint.
  2. The landlord correctly acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 and responded within 20 working days. However, it did not, at either stage, explain why it had not previously offered her support with the ongoing issues or apologise for the acknowledged delay in appointing a housing officer.
  3. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), current at the time of this complaint, states that landlords must acknowledge where things have gone wrong and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. This can include providing an explanation, apologising, providing a financial remedy or taking action where there has been a delay.
  4. This Service’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord offered no remedies to the resident at either stage outside of agreed actions to offer her more support going forward. It gave little consideration to the resident’s concerns and demonstrated little empathy in its complaint handling approach.
  5. In conclusion, while there were no issues with the timing of the landlord’s responses, the content of these was minimal. It failed to acknowledge or apologise for any failings, and as such, did not offer appropriate remedy in line with its own complaints policy or the Code. As such, a finding of service failure is appropriate in the circumstances of this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay compensation to the resident totalling £200, as follows:
    1. £100 for the failures identified in its handling of ASB.
    2. £100 for the failures identified in its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord must write an apology to the resident for the failures identified in this investigation.
  3. The landlord must contact the resident to agree on an action plan detailing how it will support her with communications with the Housing Association. It should also explain the extent to which it is able to assist her and provide timescales for the measures it will take. The landlord should provide a copy of this plan to the resident and the Ombudsman.
  4. The landlord must provide proof of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord may wish to consider the inclusion of completing risk assessments in any future versions of its antisocial behaviour policy to assist it in managing reports of ASB appropriately.