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

Abri Group Limited (202401476)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202401476

Abri Group Limited

9 January 2025


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 the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Allegations of harassment and reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1 bedroom bungalow. He has lived at the property since November 2022. The reports of ASB relate to the resident’s neighbour, who is also a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident began reporting allegations of verbal abuse and threatening behaviour to the landlord from June 2023 onwards. Between 8 June and 31 July 2023, he reported 5 incidents to the landlord.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 30 July 2023. He listed incidents he reported throughout June and July 2023. He said that he was unhappy with the lack of response from the landlord.
  4. On 3 August 2023 the landlord called the resident to discuss his reports of ASB. Following the call, the resident withdrew his complaint because the landlord agreed to warn the alleged perpetrator.
  5. On 24 August 2023 the landlord verbally warned the alleged perpetrator. On 5 September 2023 it wrote to the alleged perpetrator and drafted a good neighbour agreement (GNA). The agreement included requirements for the alleged perpetrator not to cause ASB, verbally abuse or threaten the resident, and to be considerate with parking.
  6. The resident reported 9 further incidents of ASB to the landlord between 16 September and 25 October 2023. The reports included allegations of verbal abuse and vehicle nuisance. On 3 October 2023 the landlord said that it had discussed the allegations with the alleged perpetrator and issued a warning letter. On 26 and 27 October 2023 the landlord emailed and wrote to the resident. It provided details of the support available to him and informed him that it was working with police to resolve the ASB. The resident reported 2 further incidents in November 2023.
  7. The resident complained to the landlord on 11 January 2024. He was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of reports of harassment and ASB. The landlord’s internal records show that it reviewed its communication with the resident on 26 January 2024. It noted that there were many incidents reported by the resident that it had not investigated.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 8 February 2024. It said the resident complained on 17 November 2023 but it had failed to record the resident’s email as a complaint. It apologised for the complaint handling failures and offered £75 compensation. It determined that it had followed its correct procedures to investigate his reports of ASB. It had offered a GNA and mediation to resolve the ASB, which both the resident and alleged perpetrator had refused. The resident had refused to submit evidence using incident report forms for monitoring. It felt the resident had not cooperated with its investigation so it did not uphold the complaint.
  9. On 11 February 2024 the resident said he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response. He said that he had no support or engagement from the landlord’s community safety team. He refused the offer of compensation. He asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 13 February 2024.
  10. Between 9 and 16 February 2024 the resident recorded incidents of ASB involving the alleged perpetrator. He sent links to each of these videos by email to the landlord on 16 February 2024.
  11. On 5 March 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to say that it was unable to provide the stage 2 response within its timescales. The landlord had not assigned the complaint for investigation. The resident replied to say that he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his complaints.
  12. The landlord’s records from 12 March 2024 show that it recommended mediation to the resident and the alleged perpetrator but that both parties refused. It suggested that each party agreed to an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC), which the resident refused. It recorded that the resident had refused to provide some video recordings he had to evidence his allegations.
  13. The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 April 2024 to close the case, stating that he had not provided evidence to progress the case. It suggested the resident reconsider mediation.
  14. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 9 April 2024. It did not uphold the complaint. It said that the resident declined its offers of mediation and a GNA. The resident had refused to provide his video evidence to review. It apologised for the delay in its stage 2 response and increased its offer of compensation to £175 for its complaint handling failures.
  15. The landlord allocated the resident’s ASB reports to its Community Safety Team in May 2024. It met with the resident in June 2024 and reviewed the video evidence he provided. It closed the ASB case in August 2024. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman in October 2024. He wanted the landlord to act on his reports of harassment and ASB and take punitive action against the alleged perpetrator.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has provided evidence that he was unhappy with the landlord’s decision to close its ASB investigation on 16 August 2024. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. We have considered the period June 2023 to August 2024 in our investigation. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions. The resident may wish to pursue any current issues directly with the landlord as a new formal complaint if required.
  2. As part of his communication with the Ombudsman, the resident has stated that his desired outcome is for the landlord to take robust action in response to his reports of ASB. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to require a landlord to take legal action or otherwise against its tenants. In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. The Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of a complaint. We can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.

Policy and procedures

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out how it will respond to reports of ASB dependent on severity. It will assess and categorise incidents and will either create a new ASB incident for investigation or add the incident to an existing ASB case under investigation. It will respond to reports of serious ‘category A’ incidents within 2 working days and less serious ‘category B’ incidents within 5 working days.
  2. It will agree a course of action with the resident and may conduct a risk assessment at the discretion of the investigating officer. It will contact the reporter on a regular basis to discuss any further incidents and update them on its agreed actions. Where an investigating officer is on leave for up to 2 weeks, contact during this period will not be necessary to avoid involving different investigating officers. It will record incidents from diary sheets or other reporting methods.
  3. The landlord’s harassment policy sets out its understanding of harassment as described in Protection from Harassment Act 1997. It says that harassment includes causing someone alarm or distress on at least 2 occasions. Actions can be physical, verbal, and non-verbal conduct.
  4. The landlord’s customer relations policy shows that it operates a 2-stage complaint procedure. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. In some cases, it may require more time to complete an investigation. Where an extension is required, it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 40 working days from the date of acknowledgement.

Allegations of harassment and reports of ASB

  1. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict and improve the experience of its residents. ASB cases are often challenging as options available or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not be the resident’s preferred outcome. It can become difficult to manage expectations.
  2. The evidence shows that the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial reports within the timescales set out in its policy and procedures. The resident reported 5 incidents to the landlord throughout June and July 2023. The landlord acknowledged the reports but took no action to address the allegations with the resident. There was no complainant interview, risk assessment, or action plan on how it would resolve his reports. His emails throughout this period show his increasing frustration with the landlord’s lack of action or response to his reports.
  3. The landlord’s communication improved once the resident made his first complaint on 30 July 2023. It responded to some of the resident’s emails. Its decision to issue a warning and agree a GNA with the alleged perpetrator were positive. It provided confirmation of the GNA and the terms used in its emails to the resident in September 2023.
  4. However, there was no record of a complainant interview, risk assessment, or action plan agreed with the resident. It should have established a contact plan and been clear with the resident regarding breaches of the GNA and the evidential thresholds involved. This would have enabled it to better manage the resident’s expectations. It did not do so and this caused the resident further frustration later in the timeline.
  5. The resident reported 4 incidents in September 2023 and 6 incidents in October 2023. The landlord’s responses to the resident in this period show that it acted on his reports and was liaising with police. However, in January 2024 the landlord’s records show that it found 9 open incidents and 2 open cases that were unresolved. The landlord was not actively managing the resident’s reports or maintaining regular communication.
  6. In its stage 1 response on 8 February 2024 the landlord inaccurately said the resident had refused to submit evidence using incident report forms for monitoring. It felt the resident had not cooperated with its investigation so it did not uphold the complaint. The resident had reported at least 15 incidents to the landlord from June 2023 onwards. He had submitted each incident online and by email. There were clear contemporaneous records of incidents reported to the landlord. It was not appropriate to suggest that the resident had not cooperated with its investigation.
  7. There was no evidence available to the Ombudsman that the landlord acted on the resident’s reports of ASB in February 2024. The landlord’s internal records from 23 February 2024 show that it reviewed the ASB incidents reported by the resident. It noted that there were few case notes to say what it had done about the reports. It missed the opportunity to reflect on these failures, causing further time and trouble for the resident to pursue his complaints.
  8. While escalating his complaint with the landlord, on 16 March 2024 the resident said that he was on the edge of a breakdown due to the anxiety and fear of violence. The landlord should have recognised the impact the ASB was having on the resident and reviewed its risk assessment and action plan. Instead, the landlord closed the case on 2 April 2024. This was a disproportionate response to the resident’s concerns and caused him distress as evidenced in his communication with the landlord.
  9. The landlord failed to fully consider its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB in its stage 2 response. It made inaccurate assertions that contributed to a breakdown of the landlord/tenant relationship. It unfairly said that the resident had refused to complete incident forms to support the case. In accordance with its own policy and procedures, the resident had reported incidents to the landlord online. It also asserted that the resident had refused to provide video evidence of incidents, which was factually incorrect. The resident had sent video recordings to the landlord on 16 February 2024 which it had overlooked.
  10. It is important for landlords to maintain a positive landlord/tenant relationship. It does this through effective communication and following through with promises made to the resident. In this case, the considerable delays in communication from the landlord to the resident and lack of action to address the ASB caused a breakdown of the landlord/tenant relationship. Throughout the resident’s communication with the landlord, it is evident that he became increasingly frustrated by the poor communication. He stated his distrust of the landlord and believed that it was unable to resolve the ASB.
  11. It is positive that the landlord conducted an internal review of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB on 8 May 2024. The Ombudsman welcomes and encourages landlords to learn from complaints. In this case, the landlord appears to have identified its failures to respond to the resident or keep accurate records of communication it had with both parties. It recognised where it could learn lessons to improve its service in the future. The resident had repeatedly stated that his desired outcome was for the landlord to take action to stop the ASB he experienced. The landlord therefore appropriately sought to put things right by allocating the case to its Community Safety Team and arrange a meeting with the resident.
  12. It was positive that the landlord met with the resident on 11 June 2024. It showed its intention to put things right. The landlord’s internal records from 21 June 2024 show that it found “very little” had been actioned to that point. It recognised that many of its responses to the resident were “generic” emails documenting his concerns. There had been little contact from the investigating officer. It found the videos from 16 February 2024 and reviewed them. It would have been appropriate at this point for the landlord to review its response and apologise for its oversight at stage 2. There was no record that it did, so it did not put things right in the circumstances.
  13. The landlord’s actions in this second investigation were more appropriate. It provided regular updates in July and August 2024, showing that it had established a contact plan. It considered the resident’s reports and made efforts to gather further evidence from the police. It did not record any door to door, or witness interviews as part of its investigation. It set out its reasons for closing the case in writing to the resident on 16 August 2024. This letter included the landlord’s first documented consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities and the impact the ASB had on him. It offered the resident victim support, which was appropriate but it should have considered this much earlier in the timeline.
  14. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of allegations of harassment and reports of ASB. After the complaints process, the landlord demonstrated some learning from its mistakes when it allocated the case to its Community Safety Team in May 2024. However, there was no proactive monitoring or management of this case between June 2023 and May 2024. It did little to reassure the resident that it had taken his reports seriously or acted on them until June 2024. Overall, it did not conduct an effective investigation into the reports made by the resident. It did not follow the practices of good case management. It should offer £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s policy states that it will record an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, as a complaint. It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it complies with the timeframes set out in its policy. Overall, there were combined delays of around 29 working days to issue responses to the resident.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 8 February 2024 was issued about 20 days after the resident’s complaint on 11 January 2024. This was around 10 working days above the 10 set out in its policy. However, it reflected on its complaint handling failures and apologised for the delay. Its offer of £75 compensation for complaint handling failures was reasonable.
  3. In its stage 1 response the landlord made its offer of compensation as a “full and final settlement” of the resident’s complaint. It was inappropriate to refer to the offer as “full and final settlement”. That is a legal phrase indicating that if the resident accepted the offer, he would be unable to make a further claim. As the resident could make a further claim or refer his complaint to this Service, the use of this phrase was misleading. The landlord should avoid the use of the term in the context of a complaint altogether.
  4. The landlord appropriately wrote to the resident on 5 March 2024 when it was unable to provide its stage 2 response in accordance with its own timescales. It is reasonable to address a delay and seek an extension, although it should be for no more than 10 working days. The stage 2 response on 9 April 2024 was issued around 39 working days after the resident sought to escalate his complaint on 13 February 2024. Although this was compliant with its own policy and procedures, the landlord reflected on its overall complaint handling in its response. It recognised that there had been delays, it apologised and made an offer of an additional £100 compensation for its complaint handling failures. Its offer was reasonable and reflected the resident’s time and trouble.
  5. The Ombudsman finds there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its complaint handling. It is important for the landlord to put the resident at the heart of its complaint handling. It should respond to complaints in line with the timeframes set out in its policy and procedures. However, where it failed to comply with these timeframes, it appropriately apologised to the resident. Its combined offer of £175 was reasonable and demonstrated its intention to put things right for the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of allegations of harassment and reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was an offer of reasonable redress made in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of allegations of harassment and reports of ASB.
    3. Conduct a review of its actions in this case to improve is future service delivery. It should consider whether any of the tools and powers available to it would be beneficial to prevent any further instances of ASB from reoccurring.
    4. Contact the resident and set out how it will respond to his reports of ASB in the future. It should provide a copy of this plan to the resident and Ombudsman.
    5. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should provide training to its complaint handling staff. It should stop using the phrase “full and final settlement” when making offers of compensation where this is inappropriate.
  2. The landlord should re-offer the £175 compensation set out in its stage 2 response for complaint handling failures. It should make this offer in addition to the £500 compensation ordered above.