A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202226999)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226999

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

26 November 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 concerns regarding:
1. Antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Her information request relating to the infrastructure of the block/estate.
3. Access to her medical records.
4. A referral to mental health services.
5. Staff conduct.
The Ombudsman has also addressed the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident has lived in a 2-bedroom 1st floor flat since 2005.
The landlord advised it received a report of ASB from the resident concerning her neighbour in August 2022. The resident has advised the Ombudsman she had made 3 ASB reports in August 2022 which concerned allegations that the neighbour had:
1. Almost set the flat on fire.
2. Thrown urine and faeces in the communal areas, including doors.
3. Gone through the letterboxes and breaking and entering.
4. Burnt toxic chemicals.
5. Used racist language, which the resident had previously reported to the landlord.
6. Set their dog on the neighbour’s children.
The landlord opened an ASB case which it then closed in October 2022. The resident referred the case to a community trigger panel. The landlord, resident, and local authority discussed this in the community trigger meeting in December 2022. The community trigger meeting devised a 10-point action plan.
While escalating another complaint on 3 February 2023, the resident raised a new complaint point about the landlord’s handling of the ASB. The landlord opened a new complaint for this issue. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It stated it was progressing the community trigger action plan, was in regular contact with the resident, and working with the resident and agencies. It asked the resident to notify agencies when incidents occurred.
The resident escalated the ASB complaint and raised other complaint points concerning health and safety including gas issues. The landlord’s final resolution letter dated 5 April 2023 highlighted it could not include these additional points as the resident had not raised them as part of the original complaint, advising her to raise these with its repairs team. It further explained it did not uphold the resident’s complaint as it had completed the community trigger action plan. The landlord advised it did not have evidence to support the resident’s allegations of ASB. The landlord had concerns for the resident’s wellbeing, so it spoke with its safeguarding team and offered her support information.
The resident does not believe the landlord satisfactorily dealt with her complaint and does not view the issue as resolved. The resident asked the Ombudsman to progress an investigation.
As a resolution the resident would like the Ombudsman to instruct the landlord to get an independent witness to inspect her neighbour’s property. In conversation with the Ombudsman the resident mentioned about moving, when asked if this was something she would consider she said the landlord does not want her to. This will form part of the remedy of this report.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Scope of the investigation

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Scheme. In deciding whether a complaint falls within jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.
The resident raised concerns that this situation has affected her health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not have the expertise to determine whether there was any causal link between the landlord’s actions or inactions and any reported health or wellbeing concerns. The resident may therefore wish to seek independent advice regarding this if she has not already done so.
There has been references made to historical ASB complaints. While the historical incidents can be referenced to provide a contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events since August 2022. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Scheme.
The landlord did not investigate the additional points the resident raised in her escalation request in this complaint. In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme as the following complaint points have not been through the landlord’s complaint process, we will not consider these in this report. This includes:
1. Her information request relating to the infrastructure of the block/estate.
2. Accessing medical records.
3. The referral to mental health services.
4. Staff conduct.
The Ombudsman understands the resident has raised complaints concerning other matters and she can refer these to us once considered by the landlord.
Additionally, it is not for the Ombudsman to make a formal determination on whether there has been an invasion of privacy or a breach of data. Such matters fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body under 42.j of the Scheme. The resident could seek her own legal advice about this, or she can approach the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for further advice.
The resident has provided the Ombudsman with an information file which she collated using an online dispute resolution service. The Ombudsman cannot be certain what the resident has shared with the landlord and what she has not. There has not been evidence of what email address the resident used, so the Ombudsman cannot be sure to whom the resident sent this information, if the email address was still in use, or indeed whether the resident sent it. Therefore, as the Ombudsman reviews the landlord’s response, this will not form part of this report unless the Ombudsman believes the landlord has received it.
This report will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding ASB and its record keeping.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding ASB.

The Ombudsman acknowledges that ASB cases can be the most difficult for a landlord to resolve. In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. It is also not our role to say if discrimination or hate crime occurred. However, we can assess how a landlord has dealt with matters in the timeframe of a complaint, assessing whether the landlord followed proper procedure and good practice, and behaved reasonably taking account of all the circumstances.
The ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014 aims to put victims first, the statutory guidance is clear on this. It states it is good practice for agencies to assess the risk of harm to the victim, including noting any potential vulnerabilities, when receiving an ASB report. This should be the starting point of a case-management approach to dealing with ASB. The welfare, safety, and well-being of victims must be the main consideration at every stage of the process. It is therefore important to identify the effect that the reported ASB is having on the victim, particularly any cumulative effects on mental or physical well-being. A continuous and organised risk assessment will help to identify cases that are causing, or could result in, harm to the victim.
Under its ASB policy the landlord commits to taking a victim centred approach. Once it has logged a case it will communicate regularly with the resident. It may complete a risk assessment, with the investigation being dependent on the risk.
The landlord has non-legal remedies available to it, these include mediation, working with other agencies, assisting with additional security measures, offering support, and initiatives such as a ‘good neighbour card’.
The landlord’s vulnerable persons policy describes a vulnerable person as those who experience difficulties with everyday living to the extent they need additional support to: access landlord services, cope in the event of a breakdown in landlord services; and/or to sustain the occupancy of their home. A vulnerable person may be someone who has evidence of ASB, neighbour harassment, or abuse toward them.
The landlord has provided evidence of email communication concerning the community trigger request. This was between the landlord and the local authority in November 2022. It stated that during the past 12 months it had opened 1 ASB case relating to the resident. The landlord stated it received a report from the resident in August 2022 alleging her neighbour was burning toxic waste in the garden. The landlord did not provide the resident’s original ASB report or specifically on which date the report was made.
While the Ombudsman does not have explicit evidence the landlord received the resident’s 3 ASB reports from August 2022, she provided these to us as evidence. As these were reported in the same month, the Ombudsman is minded to find it likely the 3 ASB reports were the prompt for the landlord to open its complaint. The Ombudsman noted the landlord’s investigation between August to October 2022 focused solely on the allegation of burning toxic waste and did not address the other issues. This undermines the foundations of a victim centred approach to ASB and may have been frustrating for the resident, and likely resulting in a loss of confidence in the landlord.
The landlord advised the local authority it had spoken with the resident, neighbour, and partner agencies about the allegation of burning toxic waste. The neighbour denied the resident’s allegation. The landlord said the resident did not provide any evidence despite continuing to report the smell. The landlord conducted a home visit and did not detect anything. The police and fire service attended without finding any evidence. The case was closed in October 2022 due to the lack of evidence. The landlord also said the resident declined its offer of support for her wellbeing. This indicated the landlord considered part of the resident’s ASB report and took appropriate action for that part. The landlord identified wellbeing concerns which the Ombudsman will address later in the report.
The resident requested a community trigger meeting. This was held in December 2022 and the resident advised the Ombudsman she attended it. The landlord confirmed the 10-point action plan in its stage 1 response dated 14 February 2023. There were points for the resident to complete as well as the landlord and other agencies. The action plan was to:
1. Complete a survey/audit of the water and gas supplies.
2. Advise the resident who to notify should she believe the water supply had been interfered with.
3. The resident was to keep an incident log to gather tangible evidence.
4. The resident was to call at the time of incidents happening, if necessary to call the fire service.
5. The landlord was to ensure the communal entrances were secure.
6. The landlord was to check in with the resident fortnightly for a period of 8 weeks.
7. Any racially motivated incidents should be reported to the police, by the resident or agencies.
8. The landlord was to explore and offer mediation to the resident.
9. The landlord and other agencies were to ensure they comprehensively investigated all allegations, including enquiries with neighbours.
10. The landlord was to report progress back to the local authority.
In the stage 1 response the landlord confirmed it was working with other agencies to complete its obligations from the action plan. It confirmed it had and would continue to be in regular contact with the resident. The Ombudsman noted the resident did not dispute this statement when she escalated the complaint.
In its final resolution letter, the landlord confirmed that it had met all its obligations under the community trigger action plan. It confirmed it could not take further action at the time as neither it nor partner agencies including the police, fire service, and local authority, had evidence to support the resident’s allegations of the neighbour burning toxic chemicals or of racism or hate crimes. The police confirmed there had been no investigations relating to racism or hate crimes.
The landlord advised the resident how to report any future incidents and offered mediation. It advised it was concerned for the resident’s wellbeing and was in touch with its safeguarding team. If the resident believed her mental health was affected, she should contact her General Practitioner. It provided her with details of an independent organisation free for her to use in addition to information about the landlord’s own health and wellbeing programme. The landlord refuted the resident’s allegation that it had no interest in assisting tenants of colour and stated it dealt with cases according to their merits, confirming commitment to all residents.
The Ombudsman notes the resident did not raise any dispute to the landlord’s responses that it was in regular communication with her, and it met its obligations under the community trigger action plan. However, when initially raising her case with the Ombudsman the resident said when she called a meeting with the authorities the landlord refused to acknowledge or investigate. The Ombudsman has seen evidence of the landlord’s co-operation with the initial community trigger process in emails with the local authority and by its attendance at the meeting. When specifically asked by the Ombudsman if the landlord called her fortnightly for 8 weeks, the resident said it did not. This was in direct contradiction to the landlord’s complaint responses where it stated it was in regular contact with the resident and had met all its actions. The resident did not raise this dispute with the landlord at the time and the landlord has not provided evidence of these phone calls or that they were not answered.
The landlord provided the Ombudsman with evidence of an email which the police sent it following a joint visit on 6 January 2023. This was positive case handling, it illustrated the agencies working together, visiting both the resident and the neighbour, discussing the concerns, and checking the property out. The landlord visited both properties and saw no evidence to warrant the further inspection which the resident has since requested. It is noted if the police had not sent this email to the landlord, the Ombudsman would not have known it took place, except for a passing reference made by the resident.
As there has been no ASB case file provided, the Ombudsman has had to rely on the complaint responses and emails between the landlord and local authority. For a number of reasons, the Ombudsman is minded to accept that the landlord completed these actions and the failure has been one of record keeping. These are that:
1. The community trigger process is managed by the local authority who would chase for a response had the action plan not been completed.
2. An email from the police makes it apparent that communication and joint working in line with the community trigger action plan took place.
3. If a landlord was to provide the resident with complaint responses which differ vastly from the resident’s experience, the Ombudsman would expect the resident to remark upon this in the escalation request or in further communication with the landlord.
This acceptance does not absolve the landlord’s obligation to keep accurate records or to provide these records to the Ombudsman. Record keeping will be referenced later in the report.
While the Ombudsman would deem the action the landlord took was reasonable, as the landlord liaised with partner agencies and communicated with the resident and neighbour. There are areas of concern in that the landlord did not address or investigate all the resident’s complaint points and the lack of evidence the landlord adopted a victim centred approach despite recognising concern for the resident’s wellbeing.
While according to the landlord’s ASB policy it was not a requirement to complete a risk assessment, it is recommended in the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014 guidance. This would have provided a framework for the landlord to be able to objectively assess the risk and act accordingly. There has been no evidence the landlord assessed any vulnerability the resident may or may not have.
The landlord’s final resolution letter referenced it had spoken to its safeguarding team and it had concerns about the resident’s wellbeing. This echoed the email sent to the local authority in November 2022 where the landlord had offered the resident wellbeing support, but she had declined this. To be in line with its ASB policy the landlord should be able to evidence it operated a victim centred approach to case management from when the resident raised her complaint in August 2022. The Ombudsman is concerned the landlord missed opportunities to assess whether it could support the resident gathering evidence or clearly explain what it could act on and what it could not. The landlord states in its ASB policy it can put in additional security measures or offer the Noise App which could have helped produce the evidence needed to support the allegations and give the resident peace of mind while living in the property.
While the resident has been clear with the Ombudsman about the affect the neighbours are having on her, the Ombudsman is aware the landlord cannot pursue an ASB case without tangible evidence from the resident. The allegations made are such that partner agencies would also need to provide evidence and they were clear that they did not have it to give. Should the resident wish to raise another ASB case she would need to gather evidence and report it to the appropriate agencies in a timely manner.
By requesting a community trigger meeting the resident illustrated she was not satisfied with the landlord’s management of the ASB and was attempting alternative ways to resolve the problems she reported. The resident evidenced further this frustration by raising a complaint with the landlord and bringing her case to the Ombudsman. In its complaint responses the landlord did not recognise its failure to address all the resident’s allegations when it was managing the ASB case. This would have further frustrated the resident. There has clearly been a significant breakdown in the landlord resident relationship and a possible remedy will form an order of this report.
The landlord partially responded to the resident’s ASB reports and complied with the community trigger process. However, the resident’s additional allegations were not addressed by the landlord, which would likely have been frustrating for the resident. The landlord focused its complaint responses solely on the outcomes of the community trigger which does not fully reflect the resident’s experience. In addition, the landlord did not evidence adherence to good practice by assessing any vulnerability and without considering whether supportive measures were reasonable. As such the Ombudsman finds there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB concerns.

The landlord’s record keeping.

The landlord is expected to keep a robust record of communication and case management. It should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of ASB reports, responses, and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to provide an audit trail, to evidence the action a landlord has taken. Failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
The evidence has been lacking in this case, the landlord is relying on information provided through its complaint responses. The landlord stated it carried out a home visit, telephone calls, and partnership working between August and October 2022, but there are no notes of this taking place. The landlord also advised it opened and closed the ASB case, but there was no evidence of this provided to the Ombudsman, or any evidence of the resident refusing support for her wellbeing. It also stated it fulfilled the 10-point action plan, yet the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this.
The lack of dispute about the complaint responses from the resident, the landlord’s engagement with the community trigger process, and indirect evidence means the Ombudsman is minded to accept the landlord’s main failure is one of record keeping.
The Ombudsman is aware the landlord has recently provided self-assessment against the knowledge and information management report therefore this will not form an order of this determination. However this remains an area of concern for the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB concerns.
In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding her information request relating to the infrastructure of the block/estate does not fall in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraphs 42.a and 42.j of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding access to her medical records does not fall in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding a referral to mental health services does not fall in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct does not fall in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is to issue a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £350 compensation for the failings identified in this report. The Ombudsman has used its own remedies guidance for this award. This is in recognition of the significant loss of confidence in the landlord that the resident experienced and the landlord’s failure to accurately assess itself or put things right in its complaint responses.
The landlord to offer a meeting with the resident, with the opportunity for third party mediation if desired. The purpose of the meeting is to re-establish the relationship between the landlord and resident. It will be an opportunity to discuss the concerns regarding the handling of the ASB case, any support or signposting which the landlord can offer including if the resident wishes to discuss rehousing options. The resident is not obliged to attend if she does not wish to.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

The landlord is to consider reviewing its guidance that it may carry out risk assessments in ASB cases.