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

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202207970)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207970

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

13 December 2023


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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s management transfer.
    3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident raised a complaint in June 2022 about the landlord’s handling of her allegations of ASB and noise nuisance. She stated that she had been a victim of ASB, threats and harassment by her neighbour for 8 years. The resident also said that the landlord had not helped her to be re-housed.
  3. The stage 1 response was issued on 22 June 2022. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint, and found that it had not followed its management transfer process. The landlord offered £100 compensation in recognition of this. It stated that a decision regarding the management transfer would be relayed to the resident by the end of the week, and that it would be taking tenancy enforcement action against the resident’s neighbour by 1 July 2022.
  4. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 18 July 2022 and stated that she had escalated her complaint in June 2022, but had not received a stage 2 response.
  5. The stage 2 response was issued on 23 August 2022. The landlord found that it had failed to manage the resident’s ASB complaint in line with its procedure. It acknowledged that the resident reported ASB during 2015-2019. The landlord said that there were no records that it contacted the resident in this period to provide the outcome of its investigation, and it had not provided the resident with an action plan to address the ASB. The landlord also found that between May 2020 and June 2021 when the case was closed, the resident’s reports were dealt with by different officers which did not provide the continuity the resident sought.
  6. The landlord stated that a new ASB case was opened in January 2022. It set out an action plan for the resident to gather and submit evidence of the ASB which included completing diary sheets, using the noise app and providing any videos to the landlord. The landlord also stated that a member of staff would be available to attend the resident’s property to witness the noise nuisance and ASB by the neighbour between 1 to 4 September 2022. In regard to the management transfer, the landlord said that it had contacted the resident by phone on 5 July 2022 and the process was fully explained and a guide on how to bid for properties was provided. The landlord encouraged the resident to start bidding for suitable alternative properties. In addition to the £100 offered at stage 1, the landlord offered the resident an additional £100 compensation for the quality of service.
  7. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 5 September 2022 and stated that she was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response as the ASB was still ongoing. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident said that she would like the landlord to evict the tenant responsible for the ASB and noise nuisance.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Having considered the information supplied to this investigation, the Ombudsman acknowledges that the ASB and noise nuisance incidents reported by the resident have caused her significant distress. However, it is important to note that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. The Ombudsman is unable to order the landlord to take tenancy enforcement action against an alleged perpetrator of ASB. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it has received and whether it had followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of the circumstances of the case.

 

Handling of ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it may complete a risk assessment with complainants of ASB and, where appropriate, offer a face-to- face meeting. The policy states that the landlord will assess what steps are appropriate to deal with the behaviour and formulate a response in line with the nature and level of the ASB. The risk level will guide the investigation. The policy says that it will maintain fortnightly contact with complainants, and use a variety of remedies to tackle ASB, including preventative and enforcement measures.
  2. Due to the time that has passed and a lack of documentary evidence, it is difficult for the Ombudsman to assess the landlord’s handling of ASB reports from eight years ago. However, as the landlord has itself accepted, during the first years of the resident reporting ASB there is no evidence that it provided an action plan or contacted the resident to provide the outcome of its investigation. The resident’s reports were dealt with by different officers which impacted on continuity. Therefore, there was a failing in the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports during this period.
  3. Looking at the more recent ASB case, within the stage 1 response, the landlord stated that the resident made a report of ASB by her neighbour on 13 January 2022, and that the case was being investigated. No evidence has been provided to the Ombudsman to reflect this report, or to indicate what actions were taken in response to it. The landlord has therefore not evidenced that it took appropriate action to respond to the January 2022 report. This suggests that the failings that occurred in the handling of ASB reports from previous years continued to happen.
  4. It is also unclear as to whether the resident raised any further reports of ASB after 13 January 2022. The landlord stated that the ASB case was managed by one member of staff until April 2022, when it was assigned to a different staff member. However, no records have been provided in relation to the ASB case prior to April 2022. The landlord has a duty to keep and maintain accurate records in relation to ASB cases. It is unclear whether records have been maintained and not provided, or whether the landlord failed to maintain records. The lack of evidence indicates a record keeping failure by the landlord.
  5. The landlord has provided call notes of a discussion with the resident on 19 April 2022 about her reports of noise nuisance. It is documented that the landlord requested a recording of the noise, and the resident’s application for a management transfer was discussed. The notes indicate that a further discussion between the landlord and the resident took place on 26 April 2022, after the resident reported an incident in which her neighbour used racist language towards her. The notes state that the resident did not have a mobile phone that was compatible with the Noise App, and so the landlord advised her to contact the local authority’s environmental health team for assistance. The landlord noted that environmental health could accommodate late night call outs for noise nuisance and may also have been able to provide the resident with a noise recording device to use. The landlord emailed the resident on the same date with an action plan for gathering evidence. It stated it would request a police disclosure and attached diary sheets for the resident to complete and return by 2 May 2022. 
  6. The landlord acted appropriately in providing the resident with diary sheets to document the ASB. Given that the resident was unable to use the Noise App, it was also appropriate to signpost her to environmental health to request an alternative recording device. However, there is no evidence to indicate that the landlord undertook an ASB risk assessment, or held a face to face meeting with the resident, which are actions set out in its ASB policy. Given that the resident had reported racist abuse, it would have been appropriate for a risk assessment to have taken place.
  7. The call notes provided by the landlord indicate that it had a further discussion with the resident on 14 June 2022 regarding the noise nuisance. The landlord documented that the resident had not completed any diary sheets, and so a further request was made for her to complete these. The notes also state that the resident would contact environmental health again about obtaining recording equipment. It is unclear whether the resident had made previous unsuccessful attempts to contact environmental health regarding this matter. If so, it would have been prudent for the landlord to have contacted environmental health on the resident’s behalf.
  8. In the stage 1 response, the landlord stated that it would be taking tenancy enforcement action against the resident’s neighbour by 1 July 2022, but that it could not disclose this action to the resident. It is unclear whether this action was based on evidence that had been provided by the resident to support the ASB complaints. The information indicates that the intervention the landlord attempted was unsuccessful, but there is no evidence that it then considered what other action it could take to try and address the matter.
  9. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord found that it did not manage the historical ASB fully in line with its procedure. The landlord stated that it did not provide the resident with the outcome of its investigation into ASB (it is unclear when this investigation took place but appears to relate to the older reports), that it did not provide her with an action plan to address the ASB, and that her reports were dealt with by different officers which resulted in a lack of continuity.
  10. The landlord set out actions that would be taken in response to the more recent ASB reports (as explained in paragraph 5 above). The landlord said that a staff member would be available to attend the resident’s property between 1 and 4 September 2022 to witness the noise nuisance. The landlord informed the Ombudsman that the staff member attended on 1 September 2022 after the resident had reported loud music, threats over loudspeakers and a smell of cannabis. The staff member stayed outside of the property for 10 minutes, and stated that the windows were open and she heard no noise and did not smell cannabis. A representative for the resident contacted the landlord on 7 September 2022 and stated that the noise nuisance and ASB could not be properly witnessed or logged unless the staff member entered the resident’s property.
  11. The landlord took reasonable action by arranging for a staff member to attend to witness the ASB and listen to the noise nuisance. However, given that the disturbance was being heard within the resident’s flat, it would have been a sensible approach to enter the property to assess the level of noise from inside. This would have also provided reassurance to the resident that the landlord was taking the actions set out in its stage 2 response. It appears that the landlord did not attend again because no further reports were received, and the resident stayed away from the property for part of this period.
  12. Within the stage 2, the landlord also stated that the resident should complete diary sheets, use the noise app and provide video recordings to the landlord. It said that it would contact the resident to support her in obtaining a smart phone so that she could access the noise app. No timeframes were provided for when the landlord would contact the resident regarding these matters. Approximately 2 weeks after the stage 2 response the resident’s representative contacted the landlord and said that the resident had not yet been contacted about obtaining a smart phone, or provided with diary sheets. While this was not an overly excessive delay, given the length of time that the ASB had been ongoing, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have followed up on these matters in a timelier manner.
  13. Overall, the landlord took some appropriate action to address the ASB and noise nuisance reports. However, this investigation has also identified some failures. The landlord’s record keeping regarding the January 2022 report is poor, and it is unclear what, if any, action took place between 12 January and 19 April 2022. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord undertook an ASB risk assessment, or that it contacted the resident fortnightly as outlined in the landlord’s ASB policy.
  14. In terms of gathering evidence of the noise nuisance, the landlord acted appropriately by providing diary sheets to the resident and by referring her to environmental health in the first instance to obtain noise recording equipment.  However, given that the noise nuisance remained ongoing, it would have been best practice for the landlord to have adopted a multi-agency approach by working in conjunction with environmental health to address the noise issue.
  15. The failings identified amount to maladministration by the landlord. Within the stage 2 response the landlord offered £100 compensation for the quality of service associated with its handling of ASB. It was reasonable that the landlord did acknowledge some failings in its response to the historical ASB reports and attempted to provide redress. However, not all of the failings as set out in this report were identified.
  16. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances, and whether the landlord has taken action to ‘learn from outcomes’. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  17. It is evident that the resident has been caused distress and inconvenience due to the failures identified in respect of the landlord’s handling of the ASB and noise nuisance issues. The landlord should pay the resident an additional £400 compensation to remedy the impact on the resident. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance for financial redress, which suggests amounts of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident.
  18. The landlord should also conduct a review of its failings in handling the ASB and noise nuisance reports, and consider whether any measures can be implemented to avoid a similar recurrence.

Management transfer

  1. The landlord’s allocations policy details the banding criteria for its choice based letting system. This states that band A relates to emergency or top priority. The landlord completed the management transfer application on 5 May 2022, and the application was approved on 22 June 2022. The evidence indicates that the resident was awarded band A priority.
  2. At stage 1, the landlord found that it had not followed its management transfer process, and that a delay had been caused in approving the application due to annual leave. The landlord has not provided its management transfer  procedure, and the process and timescales it ought to have followed are therefore unclear. However, it is noted that there was approximately a 7 week delay in the landlord approving the application. This was an unreasonable delay, particularly given that the resident was awarded top priority band A status. It is therefore appropriate that the landlord identified this as a failing. 
  3. The evidence indicates that the landlord contacted the resident by phone on  22 June 2022 and informed her that the transfer had been approved. On 23 June 2022, the landlord sent the resident guidance on registering on its scheme and on how to bid for properties.
  4. When the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, she stated that the management transfer process was not clearly explained and that the online form was unclear. The stage 2 response states that a member of the landlord’s staff spoke to the resident by phone on 5 July 2022 and fully explained the transfer process. No record has been provided to evidence this discussion.  The landlord should ensure it maintains contemporaneous notes of such discussions so that there is a clear audit trail of communication with residents.
  5. On 1 August 2022, a representative for the resident contacted the landlord and stated that the resident had only recently gained access to the online lettings system and that it had been difficult to obtain any help from the landlord with accessing this. The representative requested help from the landlord to search for suitable accommodation or to assist with speeding up the process. On 17 August 2022, a member of the landlord’s staff responded and stated that they had met with the local authority about whether it could assist with finding the resident a property. However, the local authority advised that it was unable to assist. Notes have not been provided to reflect the meeting with the local authority. However, the evidence supports that the landlord did take some action to establish whether assistance could be provided to the resident in finding a property.
  6. It is clear that the resident was caused distress and inconvenience due the delay in progressing the management transfer application, which was further frustrated by her requirement for more guidance regarding the process. The evidence indicates that written guidance was sent to the resident. However, the landlord has not evidenced the discussion with the resident over the phone on 5 July 2022. It may have been reasonable for the landlord to offer to meet with the resident in person to assist her with the process.
  7. A stated above, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes The landlord appropriately acknowledged the delay in approving the management transfer, and offered £100 compensation at stage 1 to remedy the distress and inconvenience caused. The amount of compensation that has been offered by the landlord is reasonable to redress the delay in progressing the management transfer application. A recommendation has been made below in regard to assisting residents with the management transfer process.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days, unless an alternative deadline has been agreed.
  2. The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint on 22 June 2022. The resident’s complaint is undated and it is therefore unclear as to whether the timescales were adhered to at stage 1.
  3. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 18 July 2022 and stated that she had escalated her complaint in June 2022. However, the evidence provided indicates that the resident escalated her complaint by email on 12 July 2022. It is unclear whether the resident attempted to escalate her complaint prior to 12 July 2022.
  4. The stage 2 response was issued on 23 August 2022, 30 working days after the resident’s 12 July 2022 email. This was therefore 10 days outside of the timescales stipulated in the landlord’s complaints policy. There is no evidence to suggest that a later deadline was agreed with the resident. It is possible that this delay was longer if the resident did escalate her complaint in June 2022. This amounts to a complaint handling failure by the landlord.
  5. The landlord has provided limited evidence in relation to the resident’s reports of ASB and the actions taken by the landlord in response. This has therefore impacted the Ombudsman’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, and amounts to a further complaint handling failure by the landlord.
  6. In order to remedy the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in providing the final complaint response, the landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation. This amount is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s guidance for financial redress there was a failure by the landlord which it did not appropriately acknowledge.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its handling of the resident’s management transfer which resolves the complaint.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord should pay the resident a total of £700 compensation, inclusive of the £200 already offered if this has not already been paid. The compensation compromises:
    1. £500 for its handling of the ASB, inclusive of the £100 already offered.
    2. £100 already offered for its handling of the management transfer application.
    3. £100 for failings relating to complaint handling.
  2. The landlord should conduct a review of the failings in its handling of the ASB and noise nuisance reports, and consider whether any measures can be implemented to avoid a similar recurrence. This should include a review of its record keeping processes for ASB cases. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of the review, setting out any lessons learned as a result of the complaint outcome.
  3. The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 28 days of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord offers to meet residents face-to-face if they require additional support in accessing and understanding the management transfer process and the choice based lettings system.