Places for People Group Limited (202207907)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207907

Places for People Group Limited

26 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Hate Crime and anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, between 2020 and 2023. The property was a 1 bedroom flat.

Summary of events

In September 2021, the resident reported that he had been locked in the communal garden by a neighbour, and had to climb over a wall to get out. The landlord agreed to send a letter to all households in the block, which it did the following day.
On 1 February 2022, the resident reported that he was being bullied and intimidated by multiple neighbours. This was happening on a daily basis and was negatively effecting his mental health.
The landlord noted that diary sheets were sent, and 2 days later it acknowledged the resident’s report. It asked him to complete the sheets so it could assess the issue and decide on any actions required.
The resident replied the same day and reported that the incidents included verbal abuse, threats and destruction of his property. He had reported the issues to the Police and they had recommended some actions, including installing CCTV. As the issues had been ongoing for over a year, the time had passed for recording incidents and action needed to be taken. The landlord replied that diary records were needed to determine what action was required. It would contact him the following week once it has spoken to the Police and internal colleagues. Around 3 weeks later, the landlord raised an ASB case.
In March 2022, the resident reported the ASB issues were ongoing and an incident had occurred that day. The landlord noted it completed a “one-day ASB form”. The landlord has not provided a copy of this form to the Ombudsman.
The following month, the resident’s support worker reported that he was being “terrorised” by multiple neighbours. They had serious safeguarding concerns for him and wanted to know if the landlord was aware how serious the situation was. In an internal email exchange that day, the landlord said it would contact the support worker, but no record of any contact has been seen by the Ombudsman.
In April 2022, the landlord carried out a visit to the block with the Police. The following month, it asked the Police to arrange a visit with the resident to discuss his reports. The Ombudsman has seen no record that a visit was arranged, or went ahead.
On 17 June 2022, the resident advised that he was withholding his rent because of the ASB issues he was experiencing. Four days later, the landlord contacted the resident and he reported that he was the victim of Hate Crime and assault.
On 23 June 2022, the landlord visited the resident. It noted that:
1. The resident said he knew the group of neighbours causing the problems, but not all of their names or addresses. The group believed that the communal area was for their sole use and had removed his personal belongings and destroyed his plants. They sat outside all day, drinking alcohol and urinating in the communal areas. They stared at him and he believed this was a Hate Crime, which he had reported to the Police in the past. The landlord advised that what he had described was not a Hate Crime, and it could not do anything about staring.
2. The resident said letters had been sent to the neighbours in the past, but this had made the situation worse. The landlord suggested sending a letter to all households in the block with rules for using the communal areas. The resident agreed to this.
3. The resident confirmed he had a support worker and provided details for them.
Five days later, the landlord sent a letter to all households in the block regarding use of the communal areas.
Between 12 and 16 July 2022, the resident and his support worker reported on at least 3 occasions that the letter sent had made things worse. He said he had been threatened and felt trapped in his home. He asked the landlord to take enforcement action to stop the Hate Crime and bullying.
On 18 July 2022 the landlord told the resident and his support worker that some of the neighbours had made counter allegations about his behaviour. It suggested mediation as a way to resolve the issues.
Three days later, the resident’s support worker confirmed that he had agreed to mediation but asked for more details about this, which the landlord provided.
The landlord submitted the mediation referral on 28 July 2022. It subsequently agreed to hold the meeting at the offices of the resident’s support worker, with the support worker present.
On 9 August 2022, the resident made a complaint that he had been the victim of Hate Crime by multiple neighbours and the landlord had done nothing to help him. Six days later, the landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint and advised it would respond by 23 August 2022.
The landlord said it provided the stage 1 complaint response on 19 August 2022. The complaint was not upheld because it had dealt with the matter thoroughly and taken the necessary actions available to it to resolve the issues. There was insufficient evidence to take further action.
The resident replied five days later that he had reported the issues over 18 months ago but these had not been resolved. The following day he said that the landlord had ignored evidence and taken no action. He had received no support and been blamed for the issues. The Hate Crime was still occurring on a daily basis. The landlord treated these contacts as a request to escalate the complaint and acknowledged this 6 days later.
On 25 August 2022, the resident’s support worker told the landlord that he had declined to take part in the mediation.
On 9 September 2022, the landlord reviewed the ASB case and asked the resident, via his support worker, to reconsider taking part in the mediation. Due to the counter allegations received, no enforcement action would be taken against the neighbours.
Later that month, the landlord asked the resident to outline where he felt it had failed in responding to his reports of Hate Crime. The resident replied that the landlord had not met with him to discuss his reports in 18 months. It had not responded to issues raised by the Police or completed recommended actions, including installing CCTV. When the landlord had visited him it had declined to see information he had offered. He gave examples of comments made that he felt were inappropriate and showed a lack of understanding for his situation. Despite his neighbours breaching their tenancy agreements, no enforcement action had been taken and the behaviour was ongoing. Mediation would be inappropriate as he had been threatened with violence. The landlord’s lack of action showed that it was complicit with the situation. His disability had worsened because of this situation and he had been left unsupported for 18 months.
On 19 September 2022, the resident reported an ASB incident that occurred in the communal garden.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 22 September 2022, which said:
1. The complaint was not upheld because it had acted appropriately and in line with its policies and procedures. It had fully investigated and responded reasonably to his reports. It had made significant efforts to introduce mediation, which he had chosen not to engage with.
2. It had visited him on 23 June 2022 to discuss the ASB and Hate Crime allegations. It responded to his concerns regarding specific comments made and described these as conversational.
3. The Police had not raised any issues with the landlord and had never requested that it install CCTV at the block. While the resident had made a report to the Police, they did not feel that a Hate Crime had been committed and had given him advice on this. It would work with the Police and if the situation changed, it would respond accordingly.
4. There was no evidence of intimidation or that this was a Hate Crime. No further action was required as no breaches of tenancy had occurred.
On 26 September 2022, the landlord reviewed the ASB case and noted that there was no evidence of tenancy breaches. It told the resident that it had investigated his reports by speaking with other residents and contacting the Police, but there was no evidence to support his allegations. It had suggested mediation, but he had declined. It had contacted his support worker to ask him to reconsider, but had received no response. It was closing his case, but mediation remained an option if he wanted to reconsider.
The same day the landlord responded to the resident’s report made on 19 September 2022. It said there was no breach of tenancy as the communal areas were being used at a reasonable time of day.
In July 2023, the resident’s terminated his tenancy and told this Service that he had fled the property because of the Hate Crime by the neighbours.
In June 2024, the resident told this Service that the landlord had failed to take action to address the ASB and Hate Crime. It was not aware how serious the issues were or the impact on him. His mental and physical health had been negatively affected. These issues also impacted his ability to progress his career. The landlord’s failure to deal with the behaviour resulted in him not feeling safe and ultimately fleeing the property. No alternative accommodation was offered and the move had negatively affected his finances. The landlord should have acted on Police advice to move him and should compensate him for its failings.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has reported that the Hate Crime and ASB began in 2020. Complaints should be brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable time of the problem occurring, usually within 12 months. This is so that the landlord has an opportunity to resolve the issues while they are still ‘live’ and the evidence is available to properly investigate them (reflected at paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme).
In this case the resident’s formal complaint was raised, in August 2022, therefore, the scope of this investigation has included events 12 months prior to this. Anything that happened before August 2021, will be considered for context but not assessed or determined as part of this investigation.
The resident has told this Service that these matters have negatively affected his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments; however, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health.
The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Hate Crime and ASB

The resident’s reports would be classified as ASB in line with the landlord’s ASB procedure, which gives examples of ASB as violence, threats, harassment, Hate Crime and misuse of communal areas.
When the resident reported an incident in September 2021, it was reasonable that the landlord did not raise an ASB case at that time, as it was an isolated incident. While it did not open an ASB case, it did take reasonable action in response to this incident.
It was appropriate that the landlord raised an ASB case in February 2022, as the issues the resident reported were of a more serious nature and he said these were happening on a daily basis. While appropriate that it did this, the records indicate it was delayed in doing so by around 3 weeks.
The landlord’s ASB procedure says that it will make initial contact to discuss reports within 1 or 5 working days, depending on the nature of the issues. As the resident had reported threats and intimidation, the landlord’s procedure indicated he should have been contacted within 1 working day. However, there is no record that this happened. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling that the landlord did not care about the issues he was experiencing.
The landlord acknowledged the report in February 2022 in 2 working days. This was slightly over the committed timescale of 1 working day set out in its ASB procedure, for the type of ASB reported. The landlord told the resident it would take certain actions, which were reasonable, but there is no evidence that it did. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling ignored.
The landlord provided diary sheets to the resident and asked him to complete these. This was sensible to enable it to assess the matter and decide on what further investigation or action was required. The Ombudsman acknowledges that completing diary records can be time consuming for residents. However, it is an important evidence gathering tool for landlord’s and reasonable that it asks residents to do this. When the resident raised concerns about completing the records, the landlord explained the importance of this to him, which was appropriate.
The landlord’s ASB procedure says that it will complete a risk assessment with residents to assess the severity and impact of the ASB, and to determine any support required. In this case, there is no record that the landlord completed a risk assessment for the resident at any point during the 7 month period the ASB case was open. This is a significant concern as risk assessments are a key step in managing ASB cases and particularly important when dealing with high risk issues such as violence, threats, Hate Crime and intimidation.
In this case, it was even more important for the landlord to complete a risk assessment at the earliest opportunity, as the resident told it that his mental health was being negatively affected. The landlord’s failure to carry out a risk assessment was in direct contravention of its ASB procedure, and amounts to maladministration. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on ASB handling, including the importance of completing risk assessments at the start of ASB cases and periodically reviewing these.
There is no evidence that the landlord took any action in response to the resident’s reports in March and April 2022. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling that the landlord was not taking the matter seriously. While a form was filled out in March 2022, the landlord has been unable to provide a copy of this, despite being asked to do so. This is a concern as record keeping is vitally important, particularly in ASB cases, as these can sometimes lead to legal action. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on the importance of record keeping in ASB cases.
The landlord did respond to the issues in June 2022 and arranged to visit the resident. This was sensible to discuss the matter and indicated that it was taking the matter seriously. However, it appears that this action was only prompted by the resident telling the landlord that he would be withholding his rent. It is a concern that it took this to prompt the landlord into taking action and indicates that it was more concerned with the potential financial loss, rather than the resident’s well-being. This was disappointing for him.
The landlord’s ASB and Hate Crime policies both say that it will adopt a victim centred approach to reports of Hate Crime and Hate incidents. The ASB procedure defines a Hate incident as any incident which is viewed by the victim as being caused by prejudice or hate of a protected characteristic. The resident told the landlord that he believed the issues he was experiencing were Hate related and therefore, in accordance with its policy commitments, the landlord should have acknowledged these as such.
The evidence shows that the landlord did not do this. During the visit in June 2022, it noted that it told him the issues he had reported were not a Hate Crime. It is noted that the resident had reported issues with neighbours staring at him and that the landlord’s ASB policy says that it does not consider funny or unfriendly looks to be ASB. However, as the resident had reported this in conjunction with a number of other issues that would be considered ASB, the landlord should have assessed the issues as a collective, and acknowledged the resident’s belief that these was Hate related.
The landlord’s failure to do so amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling that his concerns had been dismissed. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on Hate Crime and Hate incidents, including the importance of adopting a victim centred approach.
It was sensible that the landlord spoke to the resident’s neighbours to investigate his reports. As counter allegations were received, this made the situation more complex for the landlord to deal with. In these circumstances, landlord’s must remain impartial and seek to gather additional evidence to support any allegations made. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord concluded that there was insufficient evidence to pursue enforcement action against the neighbours.
In the closing letter sent in September 2022, the landlord told the resident that there was no evidence of Hate Crime and while disappointing for him, this was reasonable. However, despite there being no evidence that a Hate Crime had occurred, this should not have stopped the landlord acknowledging the resident’s belief that the incidents were Hate related. This was vital in adopting a victim centred approach, as per its policy commitments.
While there was insufficient evidence to progress enforcement action, the landlord did pursue non-legal actions, including letters and mediation. These were sensible actions to implement in the circumstances. It is unfortunate that the letter sent in July 2022 made the situation worse for the resident, however, the evidence indicates this was sent with the resident’s agreement and so not the fault of the landlord that it caused further issues for him.
The resident raised concerns about mediation being unsuitable because he had been threatened. While an understandable concern, the landlord took appropriate steps to ensure he would be supported through this process by agreeing for his support worker to attend and to hold it at their offices.
After the resident declined to take part in mediation, the landlord progressed to case closure. However, there were further actions it could have considered, including acceptable behaviour contracts and/ or a good neighbour contracts. The landlord’s ASB procedure says that it will utilise the full toolkit of non-legal actions to address issues and will only consider closing cases where it has exhausted the tools and powers available to it. There is no evidence that it did that in this case and this amounts to maladministration.
The landlord’s ASB procedure says that it will work in partnership with other agencies, including the Police. While there is evidence that the landlord was in contact with the Police in April and May 2022, there is no evidence that it was in contact with the Police about the resident’s reports after this date. This is a concern, particularly as the resident told the landlord he had reported issues to the Police and it had recommended certain actions. This should have prompted the landlord to contact the Police to follow up on the reports and any recommendations.
The landlord has told this Service that the Police would not disclose information to it, however, there is no record of this. Within the landlord’s closing letter sent in September 2022, it told the resident that information from the Police had contributed to its decision to close the case; however, there is no evidence of what this was.
It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the landlord was in contact with the Police or whether it just failed to properly record its contact. Either way, this was a failure by the landlord and amounts to maladministration.
The landlord’s ASB procedure says that it aims to discuss case closure with residents before progressing this. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord tried to speak to the resident about closing the case before doing so; or documented its reasons for not doing so. It did tell the resident it had closed his case and explained the reasons for this, which was appropriate. However, it should have also tried to speak with him, as per its procedural commitment.
The resident said he fled the property because of the Hate Crime and ASB in 2023, on the advice of the Police. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, however, no evidence has been provided to confirm this. Where the Police recommend a move for safety reasons, it is reasonable that landlord’s take action to support residents to move. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord was contacted by the Police regarding this recommendation. Therefore, it was reasonable that it did not assist the resident to move in relation to this issue.
The landlord did not identify any service failure in its handling of this matter as part of its complaint investigations. It asserted that it had followed its policies and procedures, which is a concern as there were clear gaps in its handling of the Hate Crime and ASB reports, particularly in relation to the completion of risk assessments. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to put things right for the resident at an earlier point and suggests that the complaint investigations were not done thoroughly.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £400 compensation, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Hate Crime and ASB.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for its handling of his reports of Hate Crime and ASB.
2. Pay the resident £400 compensation for its handling of his reports of Hate Crime and ASB.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders, to this Service, within 4 weeks.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme, within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide staff training to all ASB case handlers on:
1. ASB handling in line with its current ASB policy and procedure, including the importance of completing risk assessments at the start of ASB cases and periodically reviewing these while the case remains open.
2. The importance of record keeping in ASB cases.
3. Hate Crime, including the importance of adopting a victim centred approach.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders, to this Service, within 8 weeks.