East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202217915)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217915

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

28 February 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:
1. The landlords handling of the resident’s request for a subject to access request (SAR).
2. The landlords response to the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).
This service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlords handling of the residents request for a subject to access request (SAR).
Paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
The resident has indicated she is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her SAR, including the delay in providing the information. Since an organisation’s SAR handling obligations fall within the scope of GDPR, the ICO is the appropriate means to assess the resident’s concerns. As a result, this aspect of the resident’s complaint falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since 28 July 2016. The resident lives with her young child in the property, which is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord has recorded the resident as vulnerable for mental health.
The tenancy agreement prohibits the resident to:
1. behave in a way that causes or is likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to any person in the locality of the home.
2. threaten, assault or act in a way that is likely to cause alarm to other people in the neighbourhood, or to any tenants, employees, contractors or agents.
3. play or allow to be played any electrical or other appliance so loudly that it causes a nuisance or annoyance to neighbours or can be heard outside the home.
The landlords ASB policy uses “the definition of housing related ASB that is found within Part 1 of the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014: Conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person”.
The landlords ASB policy says it will prioritise reports of ASB that are most serious, to ensure that any risk of harm is managed quickly and appropriately. This is done through a scoring system that considers the type of behaviour reported and the impact that it is having. It says it will work to identify and address victim vulnerability at various stages throughout its casework and continue to review the risk assessment throughout the case and take necessary action if the risk level changes.
The landlord’s Complaints policy in place up to June 2022 was provided to the Ombudsman, this policy provides a 4 stage process for formal complaints. Section 4.4 states that stage 1 will be dealt with by an appropriate Manager. Stage 2 complaints will be dealt with by an internal panel made up of including one or more of the following: Head of Service, Director, Executive Director, plus Board member and/or tenant representative. At stage 3 the resident can appeal to a “designated person” and to the Ombudsman at stage 4.
The landlords complaints policy after June 2022 says complaints about neighbour nuisance should be dealt with in accordance with the relevant ASB Policy. If, however, the complaint relates to the process or the failure to deal with the concerns raised it should be dealt with under the complaints policy.
This latest policy shows the landlord now operates a 2 stage formal complaints procedure. The landlord will respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at Stage 2.
The landlord’s compensation for service failure policy says goodwill gestures and discretionary compensation payments can be made by way of apology in instances where its services have not matched published standards irrespective of actual loss or expense incurred by the customer. It says in some circumstances it may be appropriate to offer monetary compensatory payments, as opposed to a goodwill gesture, when a more serious complaint has been made and/or there has been a significant lack of action or service provision that has caused significant distress or inconvenience.
The landlord’s investigations into the ASB involved 2 other residents on the same street as the resident’s property. These will be referred to as neighbour A and B throughout this report.

Summary of events

The landlord provided details of an ASB complaint being made against the resident in November 2020.
According to the landlords records, a phone call was made to the resident on 1 March 2021 to discuss the reports from a neighbour but the resident became “verbally abusive” therefore the call was terminated.
On 1 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and her MP stating she wanted to “log a grievance against the landlord” for the following reasons.
1. She alleged a member of staff put the phone down on her.
2. She was living next to people who were making her mental health worse.
3. She had asked the landlord on more than 1 occasion to give her steps to move out.
4. She felt she was being discriminated against for her mental health.
5. She did not want to receive any further letters that did not contain factual information.
6. She detailed ongoing issues with neighbours and advised her property was protected by CCTV.
7. She stated she will continue to play her music as it is not played after 11pm or loud.
8. She concluded by advising living at the property was having a detrimental effect on her mental well-being.
The landlord recorded this as a complaint and acknowledged this on 5 March 2021. It said the resident could expect a response by 19 March 2021.
The resident called the landlord on 9 March 2021 and requested a callback to discuss her complaint. Within the landlords notes of this call it said the resident requested a “data access request” and asked for all the details on her account, including all the repair history and notes.
The landlord responded to the MP and the resident on 19 March 2021 and advised it had an obligation to investigate reports of ASB. It apologised that the resident was unhappy with the service and detailed the contents of the phone call which the landlord ended and the reason why.
Notes after this date show the resident was not happy with the landlords response but a stage 2 complaint was not logged as a manager spoke with the resident and agreed to speak to the local authority in support of her getting a higher priority for a move on its register. Notes state it also agreed to an internal managed move.
The resident emailed her MP and copied the landlord into the email on 13 May 2021, within this email the resident said she was no further along and needed some help.
The landlord responded to the MP on 17 May 2021 and confirmed the resident had been contacted following her recent email. It advised the resident had been accepted onto the managed move scheme and been offered 2 properties which were refused. It confirmed she had a high priority on the housing waiting list. It said it was in the process of arranging a multi-agency meeting to look at the residents needs to consider appropriate support.
The resident called the landlord the next day, 18 May 2021 and contested that 2 properties were offered to her.
On 3 June 2021, the landlord terminated a further call from the resident due to the resident becoming “verbally abusive” on the call. The resident called the landlord back and advised she had been on the managed move list for over 3 months and only just been asked for medical information which was not appropriate.
The landlord provided information of an address that was offered to the resident in June 2021 as a managed move offer, which “was refused due to area”. A second and final offer was made on 8 July 2021, which also refused. The landlord has said at this time the resident was not registered with the local authority and was removed from the managed move list on 12 July 2021.
The landlord opened an ASB case on 2 July 2021 following a report from the resident of “indecent exposure” towards her and an alleged racially aggravated incident. The landlords internal notes show this was marked a “low risk” with a score of 0 on a risk assessment on 7 July 2021. When it spoke to neighbour A on 22 July 2021 counter allegations were made.
On 29 July 2021, the resident called the landlord as she had not heard anything since reporting the incidents. On this call the resident detailed an incident involving her young daughter a few days ago and Neighbour A. She described this behaviour from neighbour A as “bullying”.
On 30 July 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident and advised neighbour A had been issued a warning but had said they felt the resident “antagonised the situation”. The landlord advised it had spoken to neighbour B also about the nails in the fence and they had advised they were erecting solar lights which the landlord did not find a problem with. It asked the resident for the crime reference number of the alleged racially aggravated incident and if she had any recording of the remark being made.
On 12 August 2021, the landlord issued both the resident and neighbour A tenancy warning letters stating the reported behaviour was unacceptable. The resident was advised she had been seen acting aggressively, being verbally abusive and intimidating towards other neighbours.
On 22 August 2021, the resident reported a further incident of verbal abuse from neighbour A, the landlord responded the following day and asked for full details or evidence of this.
On 26 August 2021, the landlord interviewed neighbour A about ongoing counter complaints including racial comments.
The landlord contacted the police on 6 September 2021 to arrange a multi-agency review of the case and described the situation as “getting out of hand” and raised concern the situation “may escalate quite quickly” as tensions were rising. The review meeting was held the next day on 7 September 2021. At this review meeting it was noted that both the resident and neighbour A would “frequently” call the police in relation to verbal abuse. Notes state it was felt the resident was being provoked by “several neighbours” and would then react in an “abusive and aggressive way”. It was agreed that mediation would be offered but if the behaviour continued from the resident that legal action would be taken.
On 8 September 2021, the police advised the landlord they were investigation an allegation that the resident was in the street with a kitchen knife. It was also noted that neighbour A had made “monkey gestures” to the resident.
On 9 September 2021, the landlord received a counter complaint by neighbour A, it was reported that the resident had threatened neighbour A with a knife. The landlord received videos also showing loud music being played. It advised neighbour A against confrontation and asked noise be reported to the noise team. It also spoke to another neighbour regarding noise complaints and subsequently wrote to the resident about complaints of loud music being played on a regular basis, it advised this was a clear breach of tenancy.
The landlord provided a copy of a risk assessment dated 9 September which scored the resident at medium risk and to “consider support and safeguarding referrals, review contact agreement”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 September 2021 and said she did not agree that she was aggressive, she had made the landlord aware on many occasions of her ADHD and personality disorder but this had “fallen on deaf ears”. She said she found it “crazy” that the landlord had never wanted to chair a meeting about the issues she had raised of “sexual and racial comments”. She stated she was “cornered by the police” due to the claims her neighbours were making about her and she would not allow herself “be killed by this”. She said she would not be “backing down to someone who has nothing better to do”.
The landlord confirmed on 13 September 2021, an issue had been reported that the resident had been standing on neighbour B’s drive playing with her dog. The landlord said it had seen CCTV footage of this and when the resident was asked to move, she responded by being “verbally abusive”. The landlord advised the resident the incidents which she had reported, had been looked into and subsequent action taken, but it could not disclose what the action was due to confidentiality. It advised the case was ongoing and it was working with the police. It said it had supported the resident in that it had offered her 3 properties through its managed move process, but these had all been declined.
On 20 September 2021, the landlord was notified by the police that 2 residents had been arrested. Further information was received noting that there had been no further action taken due to CCTV footage not being available. Neighbour A had admitted to calling the resident a ‘black bitch’ and the police confirmed that this would be “considered further”.
The resident notified the landlord, via email on 21 September 2021 that she wished to make an “official complaint” as she had been the “victim to an assault” that day by neighbour A. The resident stated neighbour A entered her property, caused criminal damage, called her a “black bitch”, touched her face and poked her in the eye. This was witnessed by her friend and children. The resident said she had video evidence of this incident and described it as a “hate crime”.
The landlord responded to say it had been made aware of the incidents that occurred and also the subsequent arrests made by the police at the time. It was still waiting for the investigating officer to make contact, once it had reviewed all the information it would be in a position to advise the resident of any action taken against neighbour A.
The landlord received further reports of ASB throughout October 2021 from both the resident and neighbour A, it contacted the police and sought legal advice before it decided on what action to take next.
The landlord served a NOSP on the resident on 25 October 2021. The NOSP detailed 13 incidents between the dates of 27 November 2020 and 20 October 2021. The NOSP detailed the resident was sent 2 warning letters in this time. The landlord also served a NOSP to neighbour A on this day also, detailing 8 instances between the dates 8 July 2021 and 21 September 2021.
On 28 October 2021 a representative for the resident emailed the landlord and advised due to her mental health she would be acting on behalf of the resident. The representative requested a rent statement, said all matters would be defended and requested a meeting.
The landlords internal notes dated 2 November 2021 state the resident had requested a “subject to access report”.
On 6 December 2021 the police confirmed to the landlord that neighbour A would be charged with a racially aggravated public order charge, harassment and 2 counts of common assault. The resident would be interviewed under voluntary nature in relation to public order.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 December 2021 and chased up her SAR request as it had been “well over a month”.
On 18 December 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident following a meeting on 6 December 2021. The letter stated the residents concerns were discussed and it had agreed a set of actions,
1. It would speak to the police about her concerns.
2. It would inspect all properties on the street.
3. It would review all the information it held on file with solicitors for further advice, in particular around the alleged assault.
4. It agreed to allocate a new officer to oversee the case and it will agree a “contact plan”.
5. Although the resident had said she does not want to move out of the area at that time. The landlord signposted to support pages on its website.
The landlord emailed the resident on 24 January 2022 and requested she complete a form to outline the specific information she wished to receive. It also requested her ID in order to process the request and this particular officer apologised they had not received the request previously.
The landlord recorded a complaint on 26 January 2022. An internal email shows this was requested by the landlord due to the delayed response to the subject access request. It then emailed the resident to acknowledge the complaint had been recorded and proposed another meeting to discuss the ASB. It advised a response should be provided by 9 February 2022.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 1 February 2022. Within its response it said the residents complaint was about the delay in acknowledging her subject access request which was requested at a meeting on 6 December 2021. The landlord acknowledged the delay and said this was due to a misunderstanding between officers on who was going to progress the request. It apologised for the oversight, said it would review its internal practice to ensure it did not happen again and offered £50 for the delay, distress and inconvenience caused.
On 1 February 2022, the landlord also sent neighbour A and the resident an ASB advice letter. This letter stated that it had been agreed with the police and council that there was a lack of evidence to progress the ASB case. It advised what evidence of ASB was required to move forward.
The landlord confirmed receipt of the residents ID on 11 February 2022 and advised it would respond in full to the subject access request by 11 March 2022 unless there was statutory grounds to extend this.
The landlord recorded the residents request to escalate her complaint on 14 February 2022 following a phone call on 10 February 2022. It recorded the reasons for the escalation request as.
1. It delayed her SAR request, which she said she needed for a solicitor.
2. She was contacting a solicitor regarding the landlord not safeguarding or helping her with the hate crime and discrimination she was experiencing from a neighbour.
3. The resident felt the landlord had delayed the process on purpose and she needed the information “as quickly as possible”.
4. The landlord confirmed it would contact the resident to agree dates, times and venues for a Complaints Panel to meet, it said this meeting would normally be within the next 28 days.
The landlord provided the resident with her subject access request on 11 March 2022.
A new officer assigned to the ASB case contacted the police on 13 May 2022 following reports of an incident which was reported to the police by both parties. The police responded with details and confirmed neighbour A was yet to be charged by the CPS.
The landlord emailed the resident on 14 June 2022 following the escalation to stage 2 and advised the panel hearing had been arranged for 25 July 2022 and would be held remotely. It gave a link to access the meeting and asked the resident if she would be attending.
Communication between the resident, the residents representative and the landlord between 16 June 2022 and 20 June 2022 confirmed there was a meeting arranged to discuss the ongoing ASB with the new officer assigned to the case on 21 June 2022.
On 21 June 2022 the ASB case was reviewed with the resident present, at which the landlord advised it would offer mediation again, arrange a further multi agency meeting and the option to move would be reconsidered.
On 27 June 2022, the residents representative emailed the landlord and advised the resident had tried to take her own life and said it was due to the racial abuse she had been subjected to. The landlord responded on 29 June 2022, asked if there was a support or social worker to make contact with and also included a link to its support service.
The landlord sought legal advice in August 2022, following on from its meeting in December 2021. It was agreed the solicitor would write to the resident confirming its position on the ASB.
The landlord emailed the resident on 23 August 2022 as it had received communication that she was now back home and it was able to proceed with the stage 2 hearing. It advised it was scheduled for 4 October 2022 and supplied a link to access the meeting over teams. The resident responded to the landlord on 27 August 2022 and said she could not use zoom or teams due to anxiety and face to face was better for her. She confirmed the date was suitable.
The landlord responded on 5 September 2022 and advised the resident that it did not offer face to face hearings but said the resident could ask someone to speak on her behalf if it was more comfortable for her. Following further communications it confirmed on 14 September 2022 that it did not offer face to face hearings due to offices closing and it did not have the facility to offer face to face for that time.
The landlords solicitor wrote to the resident on 29 September 2022. It confirmed in this letter that neighbour A had admitted to committing a hate crime against the resident and the matter remained under police investigation. Following this incident the landlord had served neighbour A with a NOSP and since then no further ASB had taken place. It advised the purpose of its letter was to explain why the alleged perpetrator had not been evicted. It advised:
1. The landlord was obliged to only pursue eviction as a last resort.
2. If further incidents had taken place following the NOSP, it could consider the next steps in the legal process. This would usually be an injunction.
3. Only after these steps, if the ASB continued could the landlord seek possession of the property.
4. No further ASB incidents had been recorded since the NOSP was served, which showed an improvement in behaviour.
5. It also noted that the resident had been served a NOSP also due to evidence of aggressive and abusive conduct.
6. The landlord had made multiple offers of alternative accommodation, all which had been declined.
7. The landlord would be able to refer the resident for wellbeing support if authority was given.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 18 October 2022, following the complaint panel hearing on 4 October 2022. Within its response the landlord said:
1. It understood the resident had received her SAR, as per its stage 1 response, it acknowledged the delay and apologised and said steps had been taken to ensure it would not happen again.
2. It took reports of hate crime “with the seriousness in which they deserve and will not tolerate such behaviour”.
3. It said it had “numerous measures in place to ensure that residents reporting hate crime incidents are protected and supported”.
4. It said the following actions had taken place:
  1. The perpetrator was served a NOSP.
  2. A Multi agency approach was undertook, advice and information was offered.
  3. Both parties were spoken to numerous times and issued written warnings when necessary.
  4. The resident was offered a move.
  5. Following the NOSP being served the further reports of ASB were not “substantial enough to pursue an eviction”.
  6. A letter explaining this was sent on 29 September 2022 by the landlords solicitors.
5. The landlord said it had an obligation to investigate claims that the resident was using her home for “immoral purposes” and sent her a letter to advise of the allegations made.
6. It apologised for the problems experienced and of the impact this had had on the resident.
7. The complaint was partly upheld due to the delay in providing a SAR. It offered compensation of £50 for this and said it would continue to monitor the ASB case and investigate any future reports.
8. Following the expiry of the Notice of Seeking Possession it would recommend to the team that an acceptable behaviour contract be considered for all parties to prevent further anti-social behaviour.
The ASB case was closed in November 2022 due to insufficient evidence and lack of incidents reported.
The landlord provided a further risk assessment dated 21 September 2023 which scored the resident as high risk and after “reviewing the case, the assessment prompted the ASB team to lead with a new allocated case handler”.

Assessment and findings

The resident has said she considers that the situation with the ASB has directly impacted her wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the residents comments. However, it is beyond the authority of the Ombudsman to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the complaint and the resident’s physical or mental wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports that they experienced because of any failings by the landlord.
It should be noted that although the residents stage 1 complaint was regarding a subject access request, her escalation request clearly identified the way the ASB she had experienced was handled by the landlord to be a complaint. This was accepted by the landlord, responded to within its stage 2 response and therefore will be investigated by the Ombudsman.

The landlords response to the residents reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).

Having considered the information supplied to this investigation, it is important to note that it is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it had received and whether it had followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account all of the circumstances of the case.
The landlords ASB policy says it will work to identify and address victim vulnerability at various stages throughout its casework and continue to review the risk assessment throughout the case. The landlord provided evidence of a victim risk assessment dated 9 September 2021 which was then reviewed on 21 September 2023. No evidence has been seen to show a risk assessment was carried out when it opened an ASB case in July 2021 although it is noted on the landlords system notes. This risk assessment was noted as 0 and low which suggests it was not done with the resident to identify the effect the reported ASB was having on her, which was not in line with its policy. This should be the starting point of a case management approach to dealing with ASB. The welfare, safety and wellbeing of victims must be the main consideration at every stage of the process.
Furthermore, as risk can fluctuate, it is good practice to review a risk assessment on a regular basis, after a serious incident, or before closing a case. With an ongoing neighbour dispute as in this case it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have a clear action plan, which would include a contact arrangement to regularly review incidents and highlight any increase in risk. Evidence was seen to show the landlord had concerns of the dispute escalating on 6 September 2021 and shortly after completed a risk assessment. It is not clear however from the evidence provided what actions, if any came from this risk assessment. The landlord noted that it had frequent contact with the police following this risk assessment, but the evidence shows it contacted the police with its concerns and held a multi-agency meeting prior to completing the assessment.
The Ombudsman recognises that ASB investigations, particularly where multiple neighbours are in dispute, can be challenging due to the proximity of properties and differing accounts of events. Therefore, while there is an expectation for the landlord to attempt to seek evidence to corroborate a resident’s reports, and to take action where a breach is identified, the absence of evidence from a reporting party can also limit the action that a landlord can take. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to provide advice to the resident about gathering evidence of ASB and in the context of the police and solicitor advice that both parties had played a role in the altercations, the landlord’s warnings to both parties was not unreasonable.
It was also reasonable and sensible for the landlord to seek advice before taking any legal action in this case due to the counter allegations against the resident and her vulnerabilities. The landlord’s solicitor advised that it would be disproportionate to take further legal action following serving the NOSP as no further incidents had been recorded. It was reasonable of the landlord to act on the advice provided by its legal team. It was also reasonable for the landlord to ask its solicitor to write to the resident to clarify its position and giver a full answer to why further action would not be taken against neighbour A.
The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to make it very clear from the outset what actions it will take to investigate the reports. Equally as important, the landlord must also manage a residents expectations as to what action it can take, as the actions available to it may fall short of a resident’s preferred resolution and clear communication is an essential part of managing ASB. Although the landlords solicitor gave a reasonable explanation to the resident about actions taken and why it would not evict neighbour A, this was not until September 2022, the ASB case was opened in July 2021. It would have been reasonable to clearly outline its legal capacities following serving a NOSP. In addition to this, in September 2021 the resident was told by the landlord it could not disclose what action it had taken following the incidents she had reported. This was not appropriate or reasonable, it is accepted good practise that landlords report back to a complainant what action it has taken or intends to make. This would have added to the residents frustration with not only the landlord but also the situation with her neighbours.
In this case, the Ombudsman considers the action taken by the landlord to try to resolve the ASB experienced by the resident to be appropriate. It gave a tenancy warning and served a NOSP, when the situation escalated which is the first step to taking legal action and this ultimately led to the incidents ceasing. What is not clear from the evidence provided is how it communicated throughout with the resident, its refusal to discuss what action had been taken in response to her previous reports would have left her feeling her reports and complaint were unheard, escalating the level of dissatisfaction and sense of lack of action on the part of the landlord.
In summary, throughout the case, there were periods of delay in the landlord responding to the resident or communicating what actions it had taken which would have led her to believe that it was not taking her concerns seriously. It has not provided evidence of an action plan. Although its system notes one was updated and therefore has been unable to demonstrate that it managed the residents expectations from the start. Its initial risk assessment was not completed with the resident when she reported an altercation with the neighbour and a case was opened which is not in line with its policy. It did not regularly review this risk assessment in line with its policy and best practise. The landlord did take action and appropriate steps in the case alongside this however, this action was not timely and the situation quickly escalated. Considering all of the above there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the residents report of ASB.

The landlords complaint handling.

The landlords complaint policy at the time of the residents initial complaint in March 2021 and then subsequent complaint in January 2022 did not stipulate a timeframe for when it would respond. The Ombudsman would expect however for a landlord to respond to complaints in a timely manner.
The residents initial complaint in March 2021 was historic but it is important to comment although different in specific detail, the residents subsequent complaint was similar in theme. The landlord did not record a stage 2 complaint for the residents initial complaint as a manager spoke with the resident and agreed to support her move. This was not appropriate as in doing so the landlord took away the residents opportunity to escalate it further if she remained unhappy, which she did and made the landlord and her MP aware of in May 2021.
Conflicting information was provided to the Ombudsman in relation to the landlords response to the MP and the information it later provided to the resident. The landlord advised the MP on 17 May 2021 that the resident had been offered 2 properties and had a high priority on the housing waiting list. It emailed the resident on 13 September 2021 advising it had offered 3 properties and in an update to the Ombudsman on 12 February 2024, the landlord advised the 2 offers of accommodation were made in June and July 2021. It also advised at the time the resident was not registered on the waiting list. It is not clear if this was a record keeping issue or a miscommunication but the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep clear, concise records for all its interactions with a resident so it can clearly demonstrate that not only it fulfils its obligations as a landlord but also undertakes an adequate level of investigation into a residents complaint.
The landlord recorded a complaint in January 2022, following it realising it had not acted on a request from the resident. This was reasonable and an appropriate step for the landlord to take as it can be clearly evidenced that it acknowledged it needed to understand what had gone wrong and put measures in place to stop this happening again. This is in line with the dispute resolution principles.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 10 February 2022 and the landlord recorded this on 14 February 2022 following a conversation with the resident. This again was an appropriate and reasonable step for the landlord to take as it ensured it captured all points of the residents dissatisfaction and included a further complaint point onto her complaint to be considered at stage 2. This showed the landlord understood its complaint process was about resolving complaints for residents and not just a process.
At the time of the residents complaint escalation, stage 2 complaints were a panel hearing. The landlord did not email the resident until 14 June 2022 about a proposed panel date, this was 4 months after her escalation request, no evidence has been seen to show the resident was kept up to date during this delay, which was not appropriate.
Following this the landlord did postpone the panel when made aware the resident had tried to take her own life and was away from her home for a period of time, this was appropriate in the circumstances.
Once it became aware the resident had returned and wanted to progress with the complaint it arranged a panel meeting for 4 October 2022. Communication however around this showed the landlord did not accommodate for the residents vulnerability or needs. When a face to face panel was requested, this was refused due to the landlord closing offices and not being able to facilitate a face to face meeting. Although it suggested the resident have an advocate to speak on her behalf this did not go far enough, no alternative neutral venue was sought, which in the Ombudsmans opinion failed to consider the residents needs. It is for this reason that a finding of service failure had been made in relation to the landlords complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlords handling of the residents request for a subject to access request (SAR) is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
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 complaints.

Reasons

Throughout the case, there were periods of delay in the landlord responding to the resident or communicating what actions it had taken which would have led her to believe that it was not taking her concerns seriously. It has not provided evidence of an action plan. Although its system notes one was updated and therefore has been unable to demonstrate that it managed the residents expectations from the start. Its initial risk assessment was not completed with the resident when she reported an altercation with the neighbour and a case was opened, which is not in line with its policy. It did not regularly review this risk assessment in line with its policy and best practise. The landlord did take action and appropriate steps in the case alongside this however, this action was not timely and the situation quickly escalated. Considering all of the above there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the residents report of ASB.
The landlord did not accommodate for the residents vulnerability or needs when arranging a panel hearing. When a face to face panel was requested, this was refused due to the landlord closing offices and not being able to facilitate a face to face meeting which is not appropriate. Although it suggested the resident have an advocate to speak on her behalf this did not go far enough, in the Ombudsman opinion to consider the residents needs. It is for this reason that a finding of service failure had been made in relation to the landlords complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £600 compensation for the distress caused by the failures identified in relation to its response to the residents reports of ASB.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for its failure to take into account her needs and refuse a face to face panel hearing for her stage 2 complaint.
The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above orders within 4 weeks of date of this report.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must initiate and complete a management review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan that must be shared with the Ombudsman outlining at minimum its review findings in respect of:
1. Its intention and a timescale to review its operational process in recording ASB complaints to ensure timely communication and updates which are clearly recorded so that it is fully confident it can demonstrate its response to residents reports of ASB and actions taken.
2. Its consideration as to how it handles and records complex ASB cases where there are multiple complainants and perpetrators.
3. Its consideration where ASB has been reported, the reporting party is provided with the appropriate advice on how to gather acceptable evidence and the actions that the landlord will / will not take in the circumstance. This will allow the landlord to manage the resident’s expectation while also making it clear why a case may or may not progress.
The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above order within 12 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider including in its ASB policy the tools that it would use such as ‘action plans’ and how these will be updated and communicated to residents who might make ASB complaints.
The landlord should advise this Service of its intentions in relation to this recommendation within 4 weeks of the date of this report.