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

Citizen Housing (202307318)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307318

Citizen Housing

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy started on 25 September 2019. The property is a 1 bedroom ground floor flat. The resident has a long term health condition that affects her back and her mobility. Her condition is aggravated by stress. At the time of the complaint, the resident lived directly below the perpetrator of the ASB. The perpetrator has since been evicted by the landlord.
  2. The resident began reporting incidents of ASB in relation to her upstairs neighbour in early 2020. The landlord spoke to the perpetrator about the reports. The landlord opened an ASB case in April 2021 following further reports of ASB. This was closed in October 2021as there had been no reported incidents since August 2021. It opened a further case in July 2022, following further reports of ASB, and this case remained open throughout the duration of the investigation.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 May 2023. She said she had repeatedly made reports of verbal and physical harassment from her neighbour, but the landlord had barely helped or communicated with her. The landlord logged the resident’s concerns as an informal complaint.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord again on 23 June 2023 to report her dissatisfaction with its response to her reports of continuing verbal and physical harassment from her neighbour. The landlord logged a stage 1 complaint.
  5. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 6 July 2023. It said there had been no failings in the processes that had been followed by the team involved in the investigations.
  6. Following escalation of the complaint to stage 2, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 18 October 2023. It said it had identified that there had been delays in taking action following the resident’s reports of ASB. It offered the resident £1,000 compensation in recognition of the delays, the effect of the ASB on the resident, and for the time taken to pursue the matter.
  7. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has expressed concerns regarding the impact the situation has had on her health. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on causation, liability, or impact on health and wellbeing. Claims for personal injury must be decided by a court, who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings.
  2. The resident is also seeking reimbursement from the landlord for damaged garden furniture, the installation of a security system, extended university fees, and loss of earnings. It is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to determine whether or not the landlord was negligent or liable for the resident’s losses in the circumstances. This would require a formal legal determination that only a court can make.
  3. However, where there has been a failing by the landlord, this Service may consider any general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB)

  1. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to establish whether the ASB reported by the resident has taken place 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 and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. It is clear from the evidence provided that the resident began reporting incidents of ASB to the landlord early in 2020. In response to the resident’s reports, the landlord spoke to the perpetrator and advised him that he must keep to his tenancy conditions. The landlord opened an ASB case in April 2021 following further reports of shouting, arguing, loud music, and general incidents of noise nuisance throughout the day and night. The landlord visited the perpetrator with the police in April 2021 and, following receipt of further complaints, issued him with a warning letter in May 2021. The case was closed in October 2021 as the landlord had not received any further reports of ASB. The landlord has not provided full details of the closed cases. So, it is unclear as to whether the landlord followed its internal processes in these cases in relation to agreeing action plans and completing risk assessments. Therefore, it has not been possible to make a finding in this regard.
  3. The landlord received further reports of ASB in July 2022. The reported behaviour included reports of noise nuisance, violence and disorder, noise from visitors and parties, damage to neighbouring properties, and foul language. The landlord opened an ASB case and visited the perpetrator again. He denied most of the allegations but agreed to reduce the noise nuisance and not cause anti-social behaviour. However, the landlord received further reports of the smell of cannabis, noise from visitors, loud music, and a dog barking. In response, the landlord attempted to visit the perpetrator again, and it sent a further warning letter on 27 July 2022.
  4. The landlord completed a ‘vulnerability risk assessment’ with the resident on 27 July 2022. The score was 16, this was deemed to be a standard score. The outcome of the risk assessment meant that the landlord was to continue to investigate and share information with relevant partners where necessary. This was in line with the landlord’s ASB process.
  5. The landlord also completed an action plan with the resident in line with its ASB process. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the action plan was reviewed and updated on a regular basis throughout the case.
  6. The landlord’s ASB and hate crime policy says it will look to intervene early to resolve issues. This may include using mediation, restorative justice, warning letters, acceptable behaviour contracts (ABC), or parenting contracts. It is unclear from the information provided, given the perpetrator’s escalating behaviour, why the landlord did not consider a non-legal remedy such as an ABC at this point. It was clear from the evidence provided that issuing multiple warning letters to the resident had not had the desired effect to stop the ASB from re-occurring and/or escalating. The lack of a process which considered or demonstrated escalation methods was unreasonable and unfair to the resident, who was living directly underneath the perpetrator, and was being subjected to multiple incidents of ASB.
  7. The incidents of ASB continued throughout August 2022. There was a particularly serious and violent incident that took place on or around 15 August 2022 involving another resident. The resident contacted the landlord on 15 August 2022 to inform it that she had installed CCTV as the ASB she had endured had had a “significant and negative impact” upon her life. She said her anxiety was high which had resulted in a “flare up of her symptoms”. The resident asked the landlord to contact her. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord contacted the resident. This was unreasonable and unfair and it demonstrates a lack of empathy towards the resident in relation to the ASB she was experiencing. It also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the resident’s health condition and how the ASB was affecting her symptoms.
  8. The landlord sent the perpetrator a letter informing him of its intention to enforce his tenancy conditions on 17 August 2022. However, between 18 August 2022 and 20 February 2023, the landlord received at least 27 separate reports of ASB. The reports included excessive dog barking, noise nuisance, drunken behaviour, raised voices, swearing, shouting and arguing. It is unclear from the evidence provided why the landlord had informed the perpetrator of its intentions, and then taken no enforcement action. This was unreasonable as it raised the expectations of the resident unfairly. It also undermined the landlord’s position with the perpetrator, as it had failed to carry out the actions it said it would even though the behaviour had continued.
  9. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 30 May 2023. She said she had repeatedly reported verbal and physical harassment from the perpetrator since 2020. She said the landlord had barely communicated with her or helped her. The landlord logged this as an informal complaint. In response the landlord contacted the resident to reassure her of its plan of action. Although it is unclear from the evidence provided what the plan of action was.
  10. The resident contacted the landlord again on 22 June 2023. She told it that she was “stuck in hell”. She said there had been a further disturbance involving the perpetrator that had resulted in the police attending the property. The landlord logged the resident’s contact as a stage 1 complaint.
  11. The landlord served the perpetrator with a notice of its intention to seek possession of his home on 24 June 2023. However, this was related to other tenancy matters, and not ASB.
  12. The resident continued to report ASB throughout June 2023. She reported incidents of verbal abuse and intimidation from the perpetrator and his partner. She also told the landlord that she felt nervous, anxious and afraid. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her concerns. There is also no evidence to suggest that it offered the resident any support or ‘target hardening’, such as additional bolts, a chain lock, or window alarms to make her feel safer in her property. This was unreasonable and demonstrates a lack of empathy and understanding of what the resident was being subjected to in her own home.
  13. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 6 July 2023. It said it was very sorry about the resident’s situation and it appreciated how frightening it had been. It said that when the incidents of ASB first started in 2021, she was advised to complete diary sheets, report any noise to the local authority, and report criminal issues to the police. However, despite being advised on numerous occasions, the resident had only returned a small number of diary sheets. It said she had continued to respond via email, and did not always include specific details, such as dates and times of when things had happened. It said its ASB policy said its residents were responsible for responding to requests for information and to carry out any actions to support an investigation, for example, by providing diary sheets. It said it was not able to offer the resident compensation as, based on its findings, there were no failings in the processes followed by the team involved.
  14. The stage 1 response was unempathetic and showed little understanding of what the resident had endured. It also insisted that the resident complete diary sheets when they are not an absolute requirement of the ASB or legal process. Diary sheets can be difficult to complete, time consuming, and repetitive, particularly when the ASB is longstanding. It was unreasonable of the landlord to expect the resident to complete diary sheets for such a long period of time without any meaningful action being taken against the perpetrator as a result. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to discuss and agree with the resident how she would present her evidence to the landlord at the start of the case. This could have been reviewed had the evidence been incomplete or inadequate.
  15. The resident escalated her complaint on the same day as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response.
  16. The landlord approved possession proceedings on the grounds of ASB on 20 July 2023. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 July 2023 to ask for an update on her case as she had not had a response to her previous emails. She attached some diary sheets and told the landlord that she was frightened. She said her sleep was being disturbed on a regular basis and she did not feel safe walking out of her own front door. The resident contacted the landlord again on 1 August 2023. She was told that the case officer would call her back. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this happened. This was unreasonable and unfair to the resident, particularly given the extent of the ASB and the effect it was having on her.
  17. The landlord’s communication with the resident has been poor throughout this case. It often did not respond to her emails or call the resident back. It did not take a proactive approach and usually only contacted the resident when she had asked for an update. This was particularly unreasonable given the nature of the resident’s complaints and the distress she was clearly experiencing. The landlord has not provided any evidence to suggest that regular contact had been agreed with the resident as part of an action plan.
  18. The landlord had told the resident on several occasions that she must report noise nuisance to the local authority’s environmental health team. The resident had done this, however, she had been told by the local authority that the landlord was responsible for dealing with such reports. On 1 August 2023 the landlord contacted the local authority and asked it to provide information based on the resident’s reports and its findings. The local authority told the landlord that it had not dealt with the resident’s complaints as it was the landlord’s responsibility to do so.
  19. It was clear that the landlord was not aware of the services provided by the local authority, in the area that the resident lived, in relation to noise nuisance. This was unreasonable as a landlord should have relationships with all relevant external agencies and local authorities in the areas that it works. This is so it can tackle ASB using a multi-agency approach. In addition, although the local authority has powers to deal with statutory noise nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, a landlord also has the relevant tools and powers available to it under the Antisocial Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014. This is in addition to the relevant grounds for possession under the Housing Act 1988. Although a multi-agency approach is desirable in these circumstances, a landlord ultimately retains responsibility for dealing with ASB affecting its residents.
  20. On 1 September 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and again told it that she had suffered a flare up of her health condition due to the stress of the situation she had been under. She asked the landlord for an update as she had received no communication. She said her sleep had been disturbed by the perpetrator and she was terrified of leaving her property. The resident told the landlord that she was seeking reassurance that there would be an end to the situation. The landlord responded on the same day and explained that it had requested further information from the police. However, it said it had other cases, so it could not give the resident a timeframe for a response. This was an unreasonable and unfair response. The tone of the email was unempathetic, unhelpful, and dismissive of the resident’s concerns. The landlord did not recognise that the situation was affecting the resident’s long term health condition and it did not offer the resident any support or reassurance. In addition, informing the resident that the landlord had other cases and using this as a reason it could not provide a timeframe for a response was insensitive.
  21. The landlord completed a vulnerability risk assessment with the resident on 9 October 2023. The score was 39. This is a high score and indicates that the landlord should “ensure the victims safety”. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord took any action following the high risk assessment score. This was unreasonable, unfair to the resident, and not within the spirit of a risk assessment. Risk assessments are a useful tool in recognising risk and informing landlords of relevant actions to take to help reduce the risk. Simply completing an assessment as part of a process and not taking the relevant steps based on the score is unreasonable and unhelpful.
  22. In addition, the antisocial behaviour powers: statutory guidance for frontline professionals says it is good practice for agencies to assess the risk of harm to victims, and any potential vulnerabilities, using a continuous approach. Therefore, it was unreasonable of the landlord not to have updated the risk assessment completed in July 2022 until 9 October 2023. This was particularly the case as it was likely that the risk to the resident would have increased much sooner due to the increase in the severity of the perpetrator’s behaviour.
  23. The landlord informed the resident on 11 October 2023 that there was a possession hearing due to take place on 19 October 2023 in relation to the perpetrator’s property. It said it would be asking the court as to whether it could add the ASB and criminality into the proceedings. This was a reasonable course of action to take in the circumstances.
  24. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 18 October 2023. It confirmed that it had received multiple reports of ASB dating back to 2020. It said it had identified that there had been delays in taking actions following the resident’s reports and it apologised for this. It accepted that it could had pursued legal action sooner. It offered £1,000 compensation in recognition of the delays, the effects of the resident’s experience, and the time taken to pursue the matter. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for complaints where there has been a high impact to the resident. As a result of the resident’s complaint the landlord said it had identified a training need for staff to ensure actions were taken in a timely manner following reports of antisocial behaviour.

Events following the stage 2 response

  1. The landlord’s application to introduce ASB grounds into its possession application was approved by the court on 19 October 2023. Outright possession was granted at a further hearing on 23 November 2023 and the perpetrator was evicted on 19 February 2024.
  2. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, 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. In this case the landlord’s apology, its offer of £1,000 compensation, its acknowledgement of the delays in taking enforcement action, and the identified learnings represents reasonable redress for the identified failings. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has been able to evidence it made reasonable and proactive efforts to resolve the complaint and “put things right” in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
  3. In summary, although the landlord’s support of and communication with the resident was poor and there was a delay in the landlord taking enforcement action, the landlord attempted to put things right through its complaints process. The redress offered by the landlord was reasonable in the circumstances, and in line with the remedies guidance provided by the Ombudsman for cases where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. The landlord is therefore to pay the overall compensation of £1,000 if it has not already done so. The finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the compensation being paid.

The associated complaint

  1. At the time of this complaint the landlord had a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy said it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints would be responded to within 20 working days of escalation. However, in this case the landlord also used an informal/pre-complaint stage. The landlord has since changed its complaints process and removed the use of the pre-complaint stage in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  2. The resident first raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 30 May 2023. The landlord logged this as an informal/quick resolution complaint. The complaint was then allocated to the team the resident was complaining about.
  3. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) (April 2022) says at 4.1 Landlords must ensure that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay. It is not appropriate to have extra named stages (such as ‘stage 0’ or ‘pre-complaint stage’) as this causes unnecessary confusion for residents. Therefore, as the landlord had a pre-complaint stage as part of its complaints process, it did not act in accordance with the Code. This was inappropriate, unreasonable, and unfair to the resident and delayed her access to the formal complaints process.
  4. The resident expressed further dissatisfaction with the landlord on 23 June 2023. This was logged as a formal complaint at stage 1. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 6 July 2023. This was within the timeframe of 10 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on the same day. She told the landlord that she was unhappy with its response. This should have prompted the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2. However, the landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage 2 until 7 September 2023, following contact from this Service.
  6. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 18 October 2023. This was over 3 months from the original date of escalation and significantly outside of the timeframe set within the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord failed to recognise its complaint handling failures within its stage 2 response.
  7. Given the delays in logging both the stage 1 and stage 2 complaints, the landlord did not act in accordance with its complaints policy, or the Code, when it responded to the resident’s complaint. This was inappropriate in the circumstances.
  8. In summary, the landlord failed to comply with the timeframes set within its complaints policy, it failed to act in accordance with the Code, and it did not recognise its complaint handling failures within its stage 2 response. As a result of these failings and the level of detriment caused to the resident, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £175 in recognition of the complaint handling failures and the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident.
    3. Pay the compensation directly to the resident.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord should, if it has not already done so, pay the resident the £1,000 compensation it offered in its stage 2 response.
  2. If it has not done so already, the landlord should ensure that its staff are fully trained to deal with serious cases of ASB. This should include communicating effectively with residents, completing risk assessments and appropriate follow up actions, completing action plans, and providing appropriate levels of support based on a resident’s specific circumstances.
  3. The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to advise of its intentions in regard to the above recommendation.