Barnsbury Housing Association (202303715)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303715

Barnsbury Housing Association

8 July 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. Concern about the cleanliness of the communal areas.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, and at the time of her complaint, she lived in a 1 bedroom flat in a block and had done since March 2021. The landlord recorded the resident as vulnerable due to having a mental health condition.
4. The resident contacted the landlord in November 2021 to report a concern about ASB, and noise disturbance, from her neighbours. The landlord opened an ASB case, and sought to interview the resident in November 2021. In January 2022 it issued the resident an ASB action plan. The resident continued to report incidents of ASB in early 2022, and the landlord issued warning letters to her neighbours in February 2022.
5. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 June 2022 to make a complaint about its handling of her ASB case, as she said she was unhappy it had not resolved the matter.
6. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 14 June 2022. It set out the actions it had taken on the ASB case, and explained it took the resident’s concerns about her experiences of racism from her neighbours seriously. It explained it had tried to conduct a home visit to discuss this further, but the resident had declined the visit. It encouraged her to take it up on its offer of a home visit. It explained there was no communal cleaning service at the property, as the residents in the block had voted against the additional expense. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, and asked her complaint to be taken to stage 2 on 13 July 2022.
7. On 20 July 2022, the landlord referred the resident to the local authority environmental health team for noise monitoring equipment. The evidence indicates that the resident declined to have the equipment set up in her property.
8. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 27 July 2022, and said:
   1. It had accepted the resident’s request to move to an alternative property, as the relationship with her neighbours had “broken down” to the point a move was now the best option.
   2. It encouraged the resident to take the local authority up on its offer to install noise monitoring equipment.
   3. It had investigated the resident’s claim that it was a “racist organisation” and had treated her differently from other residents in the block. It outlined the actions it had taken against all residents in relation to items in the communal areas and explained it had worked closely with the police in relation to her reports of ASB.
   4. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint, and said it had followed its ASB process correctly.
   5. It advised the resident she would need to take her complaint to a “stage 3 hearing” before the Ombudsman could investigate her complaint.
9. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response and asked to take her complaint to stage 3 on 11 October 2022. During the remainder of 2022 the landlord made 2 offers of alternative accommodation to the resident, which the resident declined. It kept the ASB case open and installed temporary CCTV in late October 2022.
10. The landlord held a ‘stage 3 hearing’ with the resident on 24 February 2023, and issued its stage 3 complaint response on 6 March 2023. It set out the actions it had taken in relation to the ASB case. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint, and stated it had correctly applied its ASB procedures.
11. The resident contacted this Service on 28 June 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She stated that she was unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response, and its handling of the ASB case. She raised a concern that the landlord had discriminated against her and the ASB had impacted on her mental wellbeing.
12. The resident accepted an offer of alternative accommodation made by the landlord, and moved to a new property on 4 January 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

13. It is evident that this situation was distressing for the resident. It is acknowledged that the resident does not believe that the landlord responded appropriately to her reports of ASB. The role of this Service is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring, or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations. This investigation has considered whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
14. When the resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint, in June 2023, she raised a concern that the landlord’s handling of the ASB case had impacted on her health and mental wellbeing. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury.
15. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
16. The resident also raised a concern, throughout her complaint, that the landlord was discriminating against her because of her race. The serious nature of this allegation is acknowledged, and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s claim. However, whether the landlord committed racial discrimination against the resident is a complaint which must, ultimately, be decided by a court of law. As such it is not within the remit of this investigation to consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint. She may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this matter further.
17. We have, however, considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about racial discrimination she claimed to have experienced from it, and her neighbours. We have not sought to make a determination on whether racial discrimination occurred, or not, but whether the landlord’s response to the allegations was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
18. During the period of the resident’s complaint, and the ASB case, the landlord installed CCTV in the communal areas in the block. After the landlord reinstated CCTV in August 2023, the resident made a complaint about it doing so, as she was of the view it impacted on her right to privacy. While the resident’s concerns are acknowledged, this particular concern is not within the scope of our investigation. As the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to the resident’s concern as part of a formal final complaint response, it is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.

Reports of ASB

19. The landlord’s ASB policy states that when it receives a report of ASB it will complete an action plan with the reporter to agree actions for it and resident to take. The policy states it will work closely with the local authority and police, where necessary. As part of its ‘early intervention’ measures it states it will refer residents to mediation, use warning letters, acceptable behaviour contracts, and ask the local authority to install noise monitoring equipment.
20. When the resident first reported ASB from her neighbours, in November 2021, the landlord promptly opened an ASB case and sought to interview the resident. This was appropriate in the circumstances and in line with the approach set out in its policy. The evidence also indicates that it interviewed the alleged perpetrator and issued them with a warning letter. This was also in line with its ASB policy, and appropriate in the circumstances.
21. The landlord issued the resident with an ASB action plan in January 2022, which was appropriate and in line with the approach set out in its policy. The landlord acted with clarity, and set out the actions it was going to take in the case. This is evidence that it took the resident’s concerns seriously, and sought to reassure her.
22. The evidence indicates that the landlord issued further warning letters in February 2022, and sought information from the police about an alleged incident in March 2022. This is evidence it investigated the resident’s concerns thoroughly, and worked in partnership with the police, as set out in its ASB policy.
23. The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response, of 14 June 2022, to set out in the actions it had taken in the ASB case. It also sought to manage the resident’s expectations on the action it could take based on the evidence it had. This was reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord needed evidence in order to progress with an ASB case, and encouraged the resident to provide evidence throughout. That it encouraged the resident to take it up on its offer of mediation, and noise monitoring equipment, was supportive.
24. In terms of the resident’s concerns that she was experiencing racist discrimination from her neighbours, the landlord was also supportive. It set out that it had taken her concerns seriously and investigated her concerns and found no evidence it had occurred. As set out above, we do not seek to dispute the resident’s claim. However, the evidence indicates that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously, and encouraged her to engage with its investigations further so it could take the appropriate action. Its approach in relation to the resident’s concern was reasonable in the circumstances.
25. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response, of 27 July 2022, to provide further detail on its position in relation to the ASB case, which was appropriate. It set out that it had agreed to the resident’s request for a move, which was reasonable. It set out its position in relation to the resident’s concerns she was treated differently by it, because of her race, with clarity. It is noted the resident disagreed with its assessment of its actions, but it set out its position within transparency, and addressed her concerns appropriately.
26. The landlord also used its stage 2 complaint response to encourage the resident to engage with its offer of noise monitoring equipment. This was appropriate in the circumstance and evidence the landlord acted with consistency and continued to seek to engage with the resident to provide evidence in support of her ASB case.
27. The evidence indicates that throughout August, September, and October 2022 the landlord was in regular contact with the resident about her ASB case. The evidence shows it sought input from the police, made offers of alternative accommodation, and gave regular updates to the resident. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it continued to take her concerns about ASB seriously. The evidence, and the resident’s own comments to the landlord, indicate that the housing officer handling her case built up a strong working relationship with her. This Ombudsman welcomes this approach, particularly considering the resident’s vulnerability.
28. The evidence also shows that, when concerns about the resident’s welfare, the landlord made referrals to the appropriate support services. This is further evidence that it had due consideration for the resident’s vulnerability, her individual circumstances, and the impact the situation was having on her wellbeing. The landlord’s approach was supportive and appropriate in the circumstances.
29. That the landlord agreed to a transfer for the resident was reasonable in the circumstances. It considered the impact the situation was having on her, and took the action it deemed appropriate, in line with the resident’s request. The evidence shows that in terms of the offers of accommodation the landlord sought to honour the resident’s request to move back to the area she previously lived in. This was a supportive approach and evidence it fully considered her vulnerability and sought to honour the specific request she had made. The evidence also shows that it sought to manage the resident’s expectations about the time it would take to move, which is evidence it acted with transparency.
30. The evidence shows that the landlord kept the resident’s ASB case open throughout 2023, and continued to provide her with updates, and encourage her to provide evidence. It sought information from the police in relation to an “alleged racist incident” in February 2023. This was appropriate and in line with the approach set out in its ASB policy.
31. The landlord’s stage 3 complaint response, of March 2023, gave a detailed breakdown of the actions it had taken in relation to the ASB case. It sought to manage the resident’s expectations about what further action it could take without additional evidence of ASB. While it is noted the resident was unhappy with its response, the evidence indicates it acted with clarity and took a supportive approach that was reasonable in the circumstances.
32. The landlord also used its stage 3 complaint response to reassure the resident it was still seeking alternative accommodation for her, but advised this would take time. It also used its stage 3 complaint response to provide information about how the resident could seek assistance from the local authority for housing if she needed to. This was appropriate and shows the landlord took a thorough approach to the matter of alternative accommodation for the resident. The landlord had due consideration for the resident’s circumstances and the impact the situation had on her.
33. The Ombudsman welcomes the fact the landlord facilitated a move for the resident in January 2024, and that the resident was able to move to an area she wanted and was familiar with. The landlord’s response to the reports of ASB was appropriate and it correctly applied its ASB policy. It had due consideration for the resident’s vulnerability, adopted a multi agency approach, and referred her to the appropriate support services. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

Concern about the cleanliness of the communal areas

34. As part of her complaint, the resident raised a concern about cleanliness of the communal areas of the block. The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response, of 14 June 2022, to set out its position in relation to the communal cleaning. It explained residents had opted against paying for communal cleaning, and had agreed to take responsibility for cleaning the communal areas. It is noted that the resident was unhappy with its position and wanted to pay for communal cleaning. However, the landlord set out its position with clarity and transparency, which was appropriate.
35. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response, of 27 July 2022, to restate its position it was unable to instruct a cleaning contractor as residents had refused to do so. Again, it is noted that the resident was unhappy with its position, but the evidence shows the landlord was consistent in its position and acted with clarity.
36. The landlord did not use its complaint responses to explain what it could do to support the resident about her concerns about the cleanliness of the communal area. Nor did it outline any actions it would take. This was a shortcoming in its handling of the matter.
37. On 29 July 2022, the landlord wrote to all resident’s in the block to encourage residents to take it up on its offer of a cleaning contract for a “small service charge”. This is evidence it took the resident’s concerns seriously, and went some way to putting right the shortcoming in its stage 2 complaint response.
38. The landlord’s sent all residents a further warning letter about the cleanliness of the communal areas in February 2023. This is evidence it continued to monitor the resident’s concerns and took appropriate action when it deemed it necessary. The letter gave advice about a cleaning rota for residents. This is evidence it was proactive in relation to the matter, and proposed possible solution for the residents. Its actions were appropriate in the circumstances.
39. The landlord also arranged a cleaning contractor to do a “one off” deep clean of the communal areas in February 2023. This further supports the conclusion it took the resident’s concerns seriously and acted beyond its obligations in regard of the cleaning of the communal areas.
40. The landlord used its stage 3 complaint response, of March 2023, to set out its position in relation to the communal cleaning and the actions it had taken. This was appropriate in the circumstances and the landlord acted with consistency and clarity.
41. The actions the landlord took after it issued its stage 2 complaint response put right the shortcomings in the response. It offered solutions to residents and encouraged them to take it up on its offer of a cleaning service. The landlord could not compel resident’s to agree to this, and the resident’s frustration at this is noted. It acted beyond its obligations and completed a “one off” deep clean which it evidence it took a supportive approach. We have determined the landlord’s handling of the matter was reasonable in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

42. At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord operated a 3 stage complaints procedure. Its complaint policy at the time stated it would send stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days, stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days, and stage 3 responses (following a hearing) within 1 month.
43. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), at that time, stated that 2 stage complaints procedures are “ideal”, and “complaints should only go to a third stage if the resident has actively requested” it. The Code states landlord’s must sent stage 3 responses within 20 working days.
44. The landlord sent both the resident’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses within the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code, which was appropriate. However, the comment in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response that the resident could only bring her complaint to this Service if she went through a stage 3 complaint was inappropriate. This was unreasonable and outside of the approach set out in the Code. This is evidence the landlord operated a protracted complaints process that was not compliant with the Code at the time.
45. It is worth noting that the landlord has since changed its policy and now operates a 2 stage complaints procedure that is compliant with the Code. As such, we see no need to make an order in relation to its complaints procedure.
46. The inclusion of a third stage in the complaints process created a protracted process for the resident, which caused an inconvenience. The inconvenience this caused was increased by the fact the stage 3 hearing did not take place until February 2023, 4 months after she asked her complaint to be taken to stage 3. This was an unreasonable delay and outside of the timeframes mandated in its policy and the Code.
47. That the resident did not the receive a formal final response until March 2023 was a further delay. This prevented her being able to bring her complaint to this Service to investigate. This caused a further inconvenience. That the landlord did not acknowledge, offer redress, or apologise for the delay was inappropriate, and a further shortcoming in its complaint handling.
48. The landlord operated a protracted complaints process that was hard to access for the resident. The comment in its stage 2 complaint response was inappropriate and failed to adopt the approach set out in the Code. There was an unreasonable delay in sending the stage 3 response which caused further inconvenience and unnecessarily lengthened the complaints process. As such, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and have made a series of orders below.

Determination

49. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
50. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern about the cleanliness of the communal areas.
51. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

52. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
53. Remind its staff responsible for investigating complaints the importance of acknowledging, and offering appropriate redress, when a complaint response is sent outside of the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code.