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

Your Housing Limited (202224204)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224204

Your Housing Group Limited

6 August 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of his reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. His tenancy began on 9 February 2009. The property is a 1 bedroom, ground floor flat in a residential block. The landlord has it recorded on its systems that the resident has a personality disorder and is supported by the community mental health team (CMHT).
  2. On 28 March 2022, the resident reported that the tenant of the flat above his was absent from the flat. He said there were other people in the flat who were causing noise nuisance, including playing loud music, and smoking cannabis.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 8 May 2022. He expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the issues with the occupants of the flat above.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 30 May 2022. It said that it had spoken to the resident about his concerns on 26 May 2022 and had passed details to its ASB team. The landlord said its ASB team would contact the resident by 1 June 2022 to agree an action plan.
  5. On 30 November 2022, the resident made a further complaint to the landlord. He said he was now aware that the tenant of the flat above had passed away. The resident stated that the late tenant’s son had moved in to care for them prior to their death but had housing elsewhere and should not be given a tenancy at the property. He said the son was also using drugs in and around the block. He questioned why the landlord had not removed the son from the flat above and asked it to take legal steps to do so.
  6. The landlord treated this as an escalation of the resident’s previous complaint. It provided its stage 2 complaint response on 22 December 2022. It said, “we are continuing to progress our investigation relating to the occupancy of the neighbouring property and we aim to bring this investigation to a swift conclusion”. It claimed its ASB team had investigated the resident’s reports and kept in regular contact with him. However, he had not provided “any recent or further information with appropriate evidence…to enable us to investigate and take appropriate action”.
  7. Following contact from this Service, the landlord issued a follow up stage 2 complaint response on 16 August 2023. It said that:
    1. It had served notice on the flat above on 20 February 2023 and told the resident that it would be seeking possession.
    2. It had closed the resident’s ASB case on 28 March 2023. It had discussed this with him but not sent a closure letter as its procedure requires.
    3. After further investigation, it had established that the occupants of the flat above did have a right to the tenancy. This had been granted in July 2023.
    4. It offered the resident compensation of £250 composed of:
      1. £100 for failing to send him an ASB case closure letter.
      2. £100 for the delay in updating him and communicating the outcome of its tenancy investigation.
      3. £50 for the time and trouble he had taken bringing the matter to its attention.
  8. On 23 October 2023, the resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint. He said that the landlord had “gone against the law and its own rules in giving a new tenancy to the occupants”. He said the landlord had failed to act upon his reports of ASB and granted the tenancy despite these.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has described experiencing antisocial behaviour and other issues from the flat above for a period of over 10 years. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of complaint said that it will not consider complaints raised more than 6 months after the relevant event. This mirrored the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) at the time. This investigation will therefore only consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from 28 March 2023 onwards. This is when the resident first made complaints about the current occupants of the flat above.
  2. In bringing his complaint to this Service, the resident’s desired outcome was for the landlord to review its decision and end the tenancy it had given to the occupants of the flat above. The role of the Ombudsman is to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB. Our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies and procedures, as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. We cannot tell the landlord to take specific action against neighbours.

Handling of reports of ASB

  1. The resident made the first report of ASB within the scope of this investigation on 28 March 2022. The landlord responded on 5 April 2022. It asked the resident to provide recordings of the noise, which he said he possessed.
  2. The landlord also signposted the resident to the police to report the issues with cannabis use. It said that “drug possession and taking is a criminal offence and needs to be investigated by the correct services”. This was not in keeping with the landlord’s ASB policy, which includes “illegal substances being used or sold in the area” in its list of examples of ASB. Whilst the policy says that the landlord may “signpost to other agencies where necessary to help, assist and encourage interventions”, this does not absolve it of its own responsibilities to intervene.
  3. The Ombudsman appreciates it can be difficult to evidence and enforce against cannabis use in residential properties. However, the landlord is obliged to enforce the terms of its tenancy agreement and ASB policy. Whilst multiagency working may be an appropriate way to do this, deferring all responsibility to the police did not represent such a joint working approach.
  4. The landlord did write to all residents of the block about cannabis use on 13 April 2022. However, it again signposted residents to report any drug use to the police. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to ask residents to also report issues to it. This would have ensured it had a full understanding of any issues and allowed it to consider making direct contact with identified perpetrators.
  5. The resident sent the landlord video recordings on 7 April 2022. The landlord’s records indicate that these only showed individuals entering the block and did not provide evidence of them committing ASB. The landlord asked if the resident had any recordings of the noise nuisance itself. It was reasonable for the landlord to seek such evidence before approaching the flat above about the allegations. Particularly as it was evident the resident had the ability to make such recordings.
  6. On 6 May 2022, the landlord agreed an initial action plan with the resident (the details of which have not been provided to this Service). It agreed to contact him about the case on a weekly basis. The landlord also informed the resident that the tenant of the flat above was no longer in occupation. It said that it could not divulge any further information about this but did not require him to continue collecting evidence of who was living there.
  7. The landlord’s records show that it initially kept to the weekly contact schedule. However, there are significant gaps in contact with the resident from June 2022 to November 2022, and November 2022 to February 2023. The ASB case remained open at those times, and there is no evidence that the resident agreed a change to the previously agreed contact schedule.
  8. On 19 May 2022, the landlord carried out a risk assessment with the resident. Statutory guidance for the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 says that “it is good practice for agencies to assess the risk of harm to the victim(s), and any potential vulnerabilities, when they receive a complaint about anti-social behaviour. This should be the starting point of a case-management approach to dealing with anti-social complaints”. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to complete the risk assessment earlier in the case to help it identify any support the resident required and guide its investigation. Particularly considering its awareness of his mental health condition.
  9. However, an email to the resident dated 5 April 2022 indicates that the landlord was already providing him with tenancy support, for an unrelated issue, at the time he first reported the ASB. As part of this it was working alongside the CMHT and social services. The risk assessment did not identify any further support requirements, so the detriment from its delayed completion was minimal.
  10. The landlord’s records show that on both 19 May 2022 and 26 May 2022 the resident told it that he did not wish for it to contact the occupants of the flat above about his reports. It is unclear when, or even if, the resident’s position on this changed. The focus of his subsequent reports was on the landlord evicting the occupants rather than tackling the ASB.
  11. This significantly limited the landlord’s options for early intervention, such as mediation. However, given the long running historic issues the resident has reported between him and the family in the flat above mediation was unlikely to have been appropriate in this case anyway.
  12. On 29 May 2022, the landlord met with the resident at its offices to discuss the ASB as part of its stage 1 complaint investigation. At this meeting it agreed to refer his case to its specialist ASB team. In the stage 1 complaint response, it said the team would be in touch by 1 June 2022 to agree a new action plan with the resident. The landlord has provided no evidence that this happened. The next entry in the ASB case notes it has supplied was not made until 2 November 2022.
  13. The resident has acknowledged that “there has been gaps in reporting of ASB” but stated that this was due to him losing confidence in the landlord’s handling of the issues. The resident did make further reports of noise nuisance and drug use on 16 June 2022 and 11 July 2022. The ASB case remained open at that time and the landlord has provided no evidence that it appropriately acknowledged these reports.
  14. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response mentioned only the resident’s reports about drug use, failing to acknowledge the noise nuisance. It said it had received “no recent or further information with appropriate evidence to suggest that you continue to be subject to ASB to enable us to investigate and take the appropriate action”. However, its records show that the resident had made complaints about noise and drug use on 31 October 2022, 21 November 2022, 29 November 2022 and even 21 December 2022 – the day before the stage 2 response was issued.
  15. The landlord asked the resident in its stage 2 response “is there anything else you think we can do to help to obtain the required evidence to enable further action to be taken?”. This inappropriately put the onus on the resident, when the landlord should have the appropriate knowledge of tools available such as professional witnesses, noise monitoring equipment and referrals to environmental health.
  16. The landlord did not close the resident’s ASB case until 28 March 2023. It is unclear why it kept the case open for a further 3 months after its stage 2 complaint response. During this period, the landlord took no further action over the reports of noise or drug use. Nor did it offer the resident any assistance in gathering evidence to support his reports, such as the options outlined above.
  17. In its follow up stage 2 response, the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for its failure to send a case closure letter, as required by its ASB procedure. This was a reasonable offer considering it had appropriately discussed the closure with him verbally and the detriment caused by this failure was limited.
  18. According to its follow up stage 2 response, the landlord informed the resident in February 2023 that it had served notice on, and intended to take possession of, the flat above. It said that it had revised this position in July 2023 after further investigations. The landlord acknowledged that it had not communicated this to the resident. It offered him £100 compensation for this failure. Considering the brief duration of the failure – with the landlord sending its follow up stage 2 response on 16 August 2023, this was a reasonable offer in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for service failure.
  19. The Ombudsman notes that following the events described here, the landlord attempted to resolve the issues by offering the resident a management transfer. The landlord offered the resident a property in March 2024 which he declined due to requiring support with the move. The landlord was unable to reasonably provide this support due to circumstances which this investigation will not further expand upon.
  20. In summary, whilst the landlord initially responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance, it deferred all responsibility for drug use to the police. The landlord failed to stick to its agreed contact schedule with the resident and has not provided evidence that it acknowledged or responded to all the reports he made – even within its complaint responses. After the resident struggled to provide it with evidence of noise nuisance, the landlord failed to consider ways it could have assisted him to do this. Instead, it put the onus on him to consider this. It also failed to manage his expectations by leaving the case open for several months after determining there was not sufficient evidence for it to act.
  21. The landlord recognised failings in its closure of the case and communication with the resident. It made reasonable offers of redress for these. However, it did not acknowledge the full extent of its failings in managing both the case and the resident’s expectations. Due to this, a finding of maladministration is reached, with an order for further compensation made as outlined below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Order

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation composed of:
    1. The £250 offered in its follow up stage 2 complaint response, if not already paid.
    2. A further £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration identified in this report.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with this order to this Service.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord reviews its approach to reports of drug use in and around its properties. The landlord should ensure it is taking reasonable action to deter this, meet the commitments of its ASB policy and enforce the terms of its tenancy agreement.