Deptford Housing Co-operative Limited (202015524)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015524

Deptford Housing Co-operative Limited

17 October 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. record keeping;
2. handling of the resident’s reports of discriminatory harassment and antisocial behaviour (ASB);
3. handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Background

At the time of the resident’s complaint, the resident held a tenancy with the landlord. The landlord has not provided a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement to this Service.
The landlord is a mutual ownership cooperative and the majority of its properties are shared houses for single people, such as the one that the resident lived in.
The landlord did not provide any vulnerability records, but the resident has said that he is diabetic, uses hearing aids, and is certified as visually impaired.
At the time of the resident’s initial reports of ASB and his original complaint, the landlord’s housing operations were handled by a managing agency (MA). Part way through the resident’s complaint the MA ended its service level agreement with the landlord, and the landlord’s small inhouse team took on the management of its housing operations. For the purposes of this report the MA and landlord are both referred to as ‘the landlord’, except where it is necessary to distinguish between the two.
At the time of the resident’s initial reports of ASB and his original complaint, the landlord had a single ‘grievance and complaints policy’. The policy covered both ASB reports and formal service complaints. This policy was retired on 22 July 2021, when the landlord implemented separate ASB and complaint policies.

Grievance and complaint policy (effective to 21 July 2021)

The landlord’s policy stated that all complaints would be considered by its management committee (MC). It listed the responsibilities of the MC, that included the investigation and keeping records of complaints.
It stated that complaints would be:
1. acknowledged within 7 days;
2. investigated within 14 days;
3. discussed at a MC meeting held within 28 days;
4. responded to within 7 days of the MC meeting.
It stated that all grievance complaints would be forwarded to the ‘grievance coordinator’ who would form a grievance panel. It stated that the complainant and other house members involved would be invited to attend the panel meeting, or provide a written statement.

ASB policy (effective from 22 July 2021)

The policy quoted the definition of ASB used in the ASB Act 2003. It stated that for the purpose of its policy, it would also consider harassment on the grounds of a protected characteristic as ASB. It said that where a member was vulnerable due to age, health or disability it would be taken into account in deciding what action to take.
It stated the timescales it would work to following a report of ASB. It said that it would assess the report within one working day. It said that if the report involved harassment or violence, it would speak to the complainant within one working day. It said that it would contact alleged perpetrators within 10 working days, and advise complainants of its intended actions as quickly as possible.
It listed some of the actions it may take to deal with ASB, including interviews, mediation, formal warnings, acceptable behaviour agreements, and multi-agency approaches.

Complaints policy (effective from 22 July 2021)

The policy’s definition of a complaint included a resident’s formal expression of dissatisfaction with a service or lack of action by the landlord.
It described the timescales of its procedure as follows:
1. Within five working days – acknowledge the complaint in writing.
2. Within 10 working days – carry out an investigation.
3. Following the investigation – the next MC or panel meeting to discuss the complaint, and inform the resident of the meeting date.
4. Within five working days of the meeting – write to the resident to inform them of the decisions taken.
It said that the landlord would consider awarding compensation where its failure to adhere to its policy resulted in significant distress or inconvenience.

Scope

The resident has subsequently raised issues to this Service concerning a complaint about the landlord that he made to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), the retrieval of a television that he said that he had left in his former home, and the landlord’s pursuit of his rental arrears.
It is not within the remit of the Ombudsman to investigate matters relating to the ICO. The matters relating to the retrieval of the resident’s television, and the pursuit of his arrears, occurred after the resident’s tenancy had ended and have not been investigated by the landlord via its complaint process. As such the Ombudsman has not assessed these additional matters, but has assessed all other aspects of the resident’s complaint.

Summary of events

On 11 February 2021 the resident and four other members of the shared house held a ‘general house meeting’ to discuss communal area cleanliness and related matters. The key points of the house member’s meeting minutes were as follows:
1. It noted various issues regarding bathroom hygiene and some instances of aggressive behaviour. It said that cleanliness issues with the kitchen worktops were raised, and one member had asked the resident whether his visual impairment prevented him from cleaning the worktops after himself.
2. It said that the resident had replied that he did his best, but could only clean what he could see. It stated that another member had suggested to the resident that, “he should go closer to see the mess and make an extra effort”.
3. It said that the resident felt that he was not being listened to, and left the meeting frustrated.
On 16 February 2021 the resident told the landlord that issues regarding cleanliness had been raised by house members. He stated that he was making every effort, but that his limited sight made it difficult. He said that the member’s points were sometimes put to him in an aggressive or confrontational way that he found distressing, and was impacting his health. He asked for the landlord’s support.
On 1 March 2021 the landlord told the resident it understood that there were disputes between the members in his shared house that were impacting his wellbeing. The landlord asked that the resident meet with it to discuss this on 3 March 2021.
On 8 March 2021 the resident contacted this Service and expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of his reports about the behaviour of other house members. The resident was advised how he should go about making a complaint to the landlord via its formal complaint process.
On 9 March 2021 the resident sent his complaint to the landlord’s “grievance coordinators”. He stated his belief that he was being discriminated against on the grounds of being visually impaired, and the impact that this was having on his health. He asked that the ‘grievance panel’ of the MC provide its grievance complaints procedure, and its assistance with him making a complaint.
On 28 March 2021 the landlord sent the resident a summary of what was discussed at the grievance committee. It described this as an informal attempt to find a resolution to his grievance, and the difficulties expressed by other house members. The key points were as follows:
1. It said that the resident and the other three members of the house had all agreed to the behaviour requests made to them, which would form the basis for a ‘common agreement’.
2. It confirmed that the resident had agreed to the common agreement, but still wished to take the matter to a formal grievance panel, which it would provide him with further information of.
On 9 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident with regard to his correspondence sent to its grievance committee. The landlord’s key points were as follows:
1. It said that it had considered the adverse effect the resident had described the issues as having on his health and wellbeing. It stated that it was offering him a permanent transfer to a room in a nearby house.
2. It said it would welcome the resident’s suggestions for any aids or adaptations to the next house that would benefit him.
3. It confirmed that it would still continue to investigate the allegations the resident had made, with the aim of satisfactorily closing them.
This Service has seen no relevant records, but the landlord has said that the resident declined its offer of a transfer to another house on 14 May 2021.
On 27 June 2021 the resident sent the landlord a written statement, that he said that the landlord had asked him to provide for the grievance panel hearing that it was holding on 30 June 2021. The resident’s statement said that he was asking the grievance panel to consider whether he had been discriminated against by three members of the shared house, and whether the landlord had appropriately supported him. The key points of the resident’s statement were as follows:
1. He stated how humiliated he had felt at the way he was spoken to by another member at the house meeting on 11 February 2021, and that the minutes that were available had been amended.
2. He described multiple incidents that he said he had found intimidating, and false accusations and rumours he said had been made about him.
3. He asked that the panel make clear to the other members involved, “that victimisation, bullying and discrimination is not acceptable; and, must cease and that if it does not, appropriate action will be taken by the panel”.
On 21 July 2021 the resident agreed to the landlord’s suggested meeting the following day, which the landlord had said was to further discuss the issues at the house.
On 27 July 2021 the resident told this Service that he had requested to make a formal complaint to the landlord in March 2021, but had not received a response. The resident described his complaint as being about the landlord’s lack of communication and overall handling of ASB. He said that he also wanted to know the outcome of his own grievance panel held on 30 June 2021.
On 27 July 2021 this Service explained the resident’s complaint to the landlord, and asked it to provide a complaint response to the resident by 10 August 2021. The landlord sent a stage one complaint acknowledgement to the resident the same day.
On 8 August the landlord thanked the resident for meeting it to discuss the allegations made by other house members about him. It said that it would provide a full response to the concerns that he had raised with this Service by no later than 20 August 2021.
On 31 August 2021 the resident told this Service that the landlord had not responded to his complaint. This Service asked the landlord to formally respond to the resident by no later than 7 September 2021.
On 7 September 2021 the landlord sent its complaint response to the resident, and referred to the details provided by this Service. It stated that the grievance panel held on 30 June 2021 had investigated the resident’s allegations of harassment and discrimination based on his sight impairment. It referred to a meeting with the resident on 26 July 2021, when it said that it had explained that there was a delay in providing him the outcome of the grievance panel, whilst it investigated counter-allegations made about the resident. The key points of the landlord’s complaint response were as follows:
1. It apologised for the delays with its handling of matters. It explained that the delays were in part due to the need for the cooperative membership to ratify its new ASB policy, and the handover of ASB investigation duties from the MA to a panel of cooperative members.
2. It stated that the resident had queried whether the landlord had properly supported him. It said that it had met with the resident individually, and attempted to mediate between all parties. It said that it had offered alternative accommodation and adaptions to the resident but that he had declined its offer.
3. It said that the resident had asked the panel to consider whether an act of discrimination by other members of the house had occurred. It said that the comments made by two members of the house regarding the resident being unable to see the mess had been inappropriate, but that it did not concur that it had been said in a discriminatory manner.
4. It said that the panel had concluded that all house members should be written to, with a reminder to be mindful of the terminology that they use.
5. It advised that it had concluded its investigation of the counter-allegations made about the resident, and would write to him separately about this.
On 21 September 2021 the resident replied to the landlord’s complaint response. He highlighted its failure to distinguish between the disputes and allegations made by members, and his complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of this. He pointed out a number of areas and timescales of the landlord’s policy that it had not adhered to, and said that it had further ‘muddied the water’ with its change to new policies part way through. He complained about what he felt was the landlord’s unreasonable approach to him, and its failure to address the issues he was suffering from.
On 8 October 2021 the landlord sent the resident a ‘nuisance behaviour final warning’ letter. The letter referred to various reported incidents over the previous months, and the resident’s response to each. It warned that the behaviour it had outlined was unacceptable, and warned of the consequences to the resident if it received further reports.
On 12 October 2021 the resident replied to the landlord’s warning letter. He described the allegations against him as unsubstantiated, and pointed to the lack of evidence. His key points were as follows:
1. He said that he had reported discrimination, physical attacks and harassment in February 2021 from the same house members who were now complaining about him, but was unaware of any associated actions or warnings by the landlord.
2. He expressed his concern that the landlord would ignore such serious incidents, but issue him with a final warning without evidence.
3. He said that he was powerless to stop malicious allegations being made against him that put him at risk of losing his tenancy. He asked that the landlord take great care to properly investigate any further allegations.
On 18 October 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that he had been verbally abused, threatened and physically assaulted in the kitchen of the house that morning. The landlord replied the following day and said it would look into the incident and come back to the resident shortly. It advised that the resident should report the physical assault to the Police.
On 21 October 2021 the landlord told the resident that it needed to meet him to discuss the allegations made by him and the other house member regarding the physical altercation. The resident told the landlord he was willing to meet but would bring a witness with him, as he would not feel comfortable otherwise.
Over the remainder of October, November and early December 2021 the resident and landlord exchanged numerous emails trying to establish an appointment to meet. The landlord explained that the purpose of the meeting was for the resident to give his side of the story. The resident stated that he wanted a witness to be present, and a social worker to attend via Zoom. The landlord explained why it could not agree to that, but that it could look into arranging a multi-agency meeting if the resident wished. The multi-agency meeting was held on 7 December 2021
On 7 December 2021 the resident told this Service that he had not received a stage two response from the landlord to the complaint he had escalated in September 2021. This Service asked the landlord to clarify to the resident what stage his complaint was at, and provide a response within 20 working days.
On 9 December 2021 the landlord sent the resident a letter titled, “Outcome of recent allegations”. The landlord thanked the resident for having met it to discuss the allegations made by another tenant of the house. It said that it had placed particular emphasis on the physical incident that had occurred in the kitchen. The key points were as follows:
1. It confirmed that no actions were to be taken against either party, as both had accused the other of instigating the incident, and it had no independent evidence either way.
2. It advised that the MA’s management of the landlord’s housing operation was ending on 23 December 2021, and the ongoing issues at the property would form a part of the handover.
On 24 January 2022 this Service contacted the landlord with reference to the letter sent to it on 7 December 2021. The landlord was asked to provide the resident with a response by 31 January 2022.
On 4 February 2022 this Service sent the landlord copies of the previous requests sent to it, and asked that it provide an update to this Service by 11 February 2022.
On 22 February 2022 the landlord’s housing manager (HM) apologised to this Service for the delay in responding. The HM explained that the handover of housing operations from the MA to the landlord had only completed the previous month, and asked for time while he investigated the resident’s case.
On 14 March 2022 this Service asked the landlord to provide an update on the resident’s complaint by 21 March 2022. This Service received several further contacts from the resident, who expressed his stress and frustration with the lack of response from the landlord. This Service chased the landlord again on 24 March 2022.
On 29 March 2022 the landlord sent its ‘final complaint response’ to the resident, that it said regarded his original complaint made in July 2021, and his escalation request made in September 2021. It appended a copy of its transfer offer letter sent to the resident on 9 April 2021, and copies of its ASB and complaints policies. The key points were as follows:
1. It accepted that its policies and procedures had changed, and apologised for the confusion and difficulties that this had caused.
2. With regards to the ongoing ASB – it said that it was aware of allegations and counter-allegations of ASB in the house since February 2021. It said that some of the allegations against the resident had been proven, and he had been issued a final warning on 8 October 2021.
3. It said it could not disclose specific actions taken against other members of the house, but said that it had made efforts including informal meetings and mediation.
4. It explained that it had not provided the resident with a copy of the outcome of a grievance hearing, as one had not taken place.
5. It said that the appointment of a new MC, the change of arrangement with the MA, and the new policies and procedures, had all impacted how it had communicated with the resident, for which it apologised.
On 29 March 2022 the resident told this Service that he considered the landlord’s response unacceptable. He said that he did not recognise the landlord’s transfer offer letter that it said it had sent him on 9 April 2021. He said that he had made his complaint to the landlord in March 2021, not July 2021 as the landlord had stated, and that the landlord kept referring to its use of policies that were not in effect at that time. He stated that the landlord’s comment that some of the allegations against him had been ‘proven’, was the ‘first he had heard of this’.

Summary of events after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint process

On 26 April 2022 this Service wrote to the landlord and requested the information that was needed to be able to investigate the resident’s complaint. This Service chased the landlord to provide the information through May and June 2022 without response.
On 15 June 2022 this Service issued the landlord a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) for failing to provide the information necessary to investigate the resident’s complaint. The landlord was given until 22 June 2022 to provide the information.
On 17 June 2022 this Service called the landlord’s HM, who explained that he had only been in the role since February 2022 and that it would be difficult for him to access information from before his time. This Service asked that the landlord provide what information it could by 22 June 2022, which it did.
On 28 September 2022 the resident told this Service that he was moving home, and that he felt that he had been driven out by the harassment of the other house members and the landlord. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s tenancy ended on 30 September 2022.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman acknowledges that the operational resources and set up of a cooperative, differ significantly from that of a housing association or council. It is also acknowledged that the landlord changed its single ‘grievance complaint’ policy, to more appropriate separate ASB and complaint policies, and took back operational responsibilities from its managing agency, all during the course of the resident’s complaint. These differences and factors have been considered as part of the following assessments.
Nevertheless, the landlord is a registered social housing provider, and a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. It would be expected that the landlord would maintain records, and handle both formal complaints and reports of ASB accordingly.
It is not disputed that the landlord struggled to provide this Service with appropriate records, and caused confusion with the use of its own policies that led to the resident experiencing significant delays. It is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord also consistently conflated the resident’s reports of ASB, harassment and discrimination, with his attempts to make a formal service complaint.
The landlord’s approach also appeared to be inconsistent, and at times somewhat heavy handed with the resident. Particularly given the resident’s vulnerabilities, that would have further worsened the distress he had already described himself as experiencing. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration with all three elements of the resident’s complaint.

Record keeping

Clear record keeping is a core function of ASB and wider landlord services. It allows evidence to be provided to the Ombudsman when requested. More importantly, clear record keeping is essential to enable landlords to monitor outstanding issues, maintain continuity of service through periods of change, and provide effective services tailored to the vulnerabilities and needs of its residents. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain contemporaneous records including resident reports of ASB, and its subsequent response, actions and rationale.
Paragraph 10 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states that, “The member must provide copies (without charge) of any information requested by the Ombudsman that is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, relevant to the complaint”. Paragraph 11 of the Scheme states that, “The member must provide the requested information within a reasonable timescale..”.
This Service first requested that the landlord provide the information relevant to the resident’s complaint on 26 April 2022. We continued to request the information through May and into June 2022 without response from the landlord. As such a Complaint Handling Failure Order was issued to the landlord on 15 June 2022. It was only after this that the landlord responded to this Service, and provided what information it was able to on 22 June 2022. The landlord’s actions were therefore unreasonable.
The landlord explained to this Service its recent change of staff and management set up, and why this would make it difficult to provide some of the requested information. As above, the Ombudsman acknowledges these factors, and the operational limitations of a small cooperative, relative to a larger landlord. Nonetheless, it is expected that the landlord’s record keeping processes would still be sufficiently robust to deal with such changes, and it was a failing that they were not.
The landlord was able to provide sufficient information for the Ombudsman to understand the broad timeline of events above. However the landlord was unable to evidence many of its key actions that it referred to in its communications with the resident. This has hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation, and is reflected in the assessments below.
The landlord was asked to provide this Service a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement, but did not. The landlord also failed to provide its requested records of the resident’s vulnerabilities, that were particularly relevant to several aspects of both his reports of ASB and harassment, and to his formal complaint.
Whilst the landlord has demonstrated that it was aware that the resident had impaired vision, it is unclear whether it was aware of his use of hearing aids or of his health condition. In either case, it is expected that a landlord would maintain accurate records of a resident’s vulnerabilities, that would allow it to tailor its services and respond effectively to the resident’s needs. The landlord’s failure to provide its record of the resident’s vulnerabilities was therefore unreasonable.
It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s poor record keeping would have been at the very least a contributing factor, to the delays, service failures and issues experienced by the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping, and made an order to this regard.

ASB handling

The Ombudsman has assessed the landlord’s ASB handling, separately from its complaint handling. However, it was a significant failure that the landlord attempted to combine its handling of these two separate elements, as if they were one and the same. As such, many of the landlord’s failings covered in this assessment, are similarly applicable to its complaint handling, and this is reflected in the overlapping nature of the two assessments.
Reports of ASB and related matters are often referred to as ASB ‘complaints’. This shared terminology makes it understandable that residents will sometimes conflate or confuse reports (complaints) of ASB, with formal service complaints. However, it is expected that a landlord would differentiate between the two, and clearly communicate this difference to residents.
It would be further expected that a landlord would have a published ASB policy, as it is required to, and that it would follow this policy in its handling of reports of ASB. If a resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of their reports of ASB, their dissatisfaction would then be handled as a formal complaint in line with the landlord’s separate complaint policy.
The resident made his first report of ASB to the landlord on 16 February 2021. He made what should have been his separate formal complaint to the landlord on 9 March 2021 (considered in the assessment below). It was unreasonable that the landlord did not at that time, have the policies in place that it was required to, and that could have allowed it to deal with these two matters appropriately and separately.
The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s report of ASB and harassment made on 16 February 2021, until it contacted him on 1 March 2021. This was outside of the timeframes stated in its combined ASB and complaint policy (grievance and complaint policy), and was therefore unreasonable.
The resident then tried to make his formal complaint on 9 March 2021. Again the landlord’s lack of an appropriate policy or process, left him trying to report the ASB that he said that he was experiencing from other house members, and his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of this, both via the landlord’s grievance committee.
With regard to the allegations and counter allegations of ASB, it was in line with the landlord’s policy for its grievance committee to seek to understand the position and expectations of all parties, and to bring this together in what it referred to as an informal ‘common agreement’. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of when or how this took place, but it did demonstrate a resolution focused approach to the matter. The landlord appropriately shared its findings and proposed common agreement with the resident on 28 March 2021.
The resident agreed to the common agreement, but asked that the matter still proceed to a formal grievance panel. It is reasonable to conclude that this was at least in part due to the resident feeling that the landlord had responded to his reports of ASB, but not to his associated complaint. This is demonstrated by his statement to the panel made on 27 June 2021, which questioned whether the landlord had appropriately supported him. This is again evidence of how the landlord’s combined approach to ASB and complaints, unnecessarily complicated matters for all parties, and was therefore unreasonable.
The landlord’s letter to the resident on 9 April 2021 was reasonable in all regards but, as referred to above, the landlord’s poor record keeping has hampered the Ombudsman’s assessment of this. The landlord’s letter demonstrated that it had appropriately considered the resident’s wellbeing and impaired vision, offered him a transfer to a nearby property, and invited his suggestions regarding any aids or adaptations.
The landlord’s complaint responses sent to the resident on 7 September 2021, and 29 March 2022, both referred to the resident declining its transfer offer. The landlord’s latter response stated that the resident had done this on 14 May 2021, however the resident subsequently said that he did not recognise the landlord’s transfer offer letter sent to him on 9 April 2021.
Particularly given the resident’s impaired vision, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord’s records to evidence its efforts to ensure that the resident was aware of and understood, its transfer offer letter. It is unreasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no further records relating to the landlord’s transfer offer letter, nor evidence that the resident received or declined it.
As above, the resident submitted his statement for the consideration of the landlord’s grievance panel on 27 June 2021. The landlord provided no evidence to this Service relating to the grievance panel hearing, which has again unreasonably hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation. The landlord’s subsequent communications to the resident about the grievance panel were also inconsistent and contradictory, and this has been further considered in the complaint handling assessment below
The landlord sent the resident a final nuisance behaviour warning letter on 8 October 2021. Again it is unreasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of the landlord’s rationale or decision making process that led to it taking this action, nor that it had considered his vulnerabilities. In the absence of any records, combined with the landlord’s acceptance that the resident had denied most of what was alleged, the landlord’s actions appeared somewhat heavy handed.
As such, it was understandable that the resident responded highlighting the landlord’s lack of evidence of the “unsubstantiated allegations”, and querying why his own reports had appeared to go unactioned. The resident described the anxiety that he felt at the prospect of the landlord taking tenancy enforcement action against him, for what he referred to as further potential “malicious allegations”. The landlord’s new ASB policy was in effect by this time. It is unreasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord had taken into account the resident’s health and disability in deciding what action it took, and the likely impact on him, in line with its policy.
The resident reported that he had been verbally abused and assaulted in the shared house on 18 October 2021. It was appropriate that the landlord responded to the resident in line with the timeframe stated in its policy, and expressed its need to further discuss the incident with him.
Over the following weeks the resident and landlord exchanged numerous emails to agree an appointment to meet. The landlord said that the meeting was to discuss the resident’s allegations, and the associated counter allegations it had received about him. The landlord described the meeting as an informal opportunity for the resident to give ‘his side of the story’.
Given his experiences to date, it was understandable that the resident wanted to involve other people, including social services in the meeting. The arrangement of the meeting became very protracted, but the landlord responded promptly throughout and made reasonable efforts to accommodate the resident’s requests. The meeting eventually took place on 7 December 2021, and it was appropriate that the landlord took a multi-agency approach in line with its policy.
It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident of the outcome of its investigation of the 18 October 2021 incident, two days after its meeting with him, on 9 December 2021. The landlord stated that it was taking no action against either party, as it had no evidence that would support this.
It is not the role of the Ombudsman to assess whether or not ASB took place, or who was responsible for it. However the Ombudsman would expect the landlord’s advice to the resident to be consistent, and for its records to evidence its decision making process. The landlord’s complaint handling is assessed below, but its statement that some allegations against the resident had been “proven”, made in its final complaint response sent to him on 29 March 2022, appeared neither consistent nor supported by evidence.
In commenting on the ‘proven allegations’, the landlord referred to its ‘final warning’ to the resident given on 8 October 2021. As above, the resident had disputed the landlord’s warning. He had highlighted that he believed it was based on unsubstantiated claims, and was without evidence. The Ombudsman has seen no record demonstrating that the landlord considered or responded to the resident’s points, nor how it had reached it decision to issue him a final warning. The landlord itself accepted that it had no conclusive evidence concerning the incident on 18 October 2021.
As such, it was unreasonable for the landlord to assert that the allegations against the resident had been “proven”, with no further evidence or explanation of how it had concluded this. It was understandable that the resident objected to the landlord’s claim, in his comment to this Service that this was the ‘first that he had heard of it’. This would have further enforced the resident’s feeling that the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB had been unfair and heavy handed.

Complaint handling

As detailed above, when the resident made his original complaint to the landlord on 9 March 2021, the landlord had a combined ASB and complaint policy. The policy would have offered the landlord little chance of handling the resident’s complaint appropriately, and in line with the requirements of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, that was updated in July 2020.
It was unreasonable that, rather than respond to the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s policy required that he go through the protracted grievance panel process described above, and that inappropriately conflated his complaint with his reports of ASB.
From 27 July 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and this Service several times, to complain that the landlord had not advised him of the outcome of the grievance panel hearing held on 30 June 2021, nor responded to his complaint made on 9 March 2021.
After the intervention of this Service, the landlord sent its first complaint response to the resident on 7 September 2021. It was unreasonable that this was 183 days after the resident had first made his complaint.
As referred to in the assessment above, the landlord’s subsequent communications to the resident regarding the grievance panel, appeared inconsistent and contradictory. The landlord’s first complaint response to the resident referred to its grievance panel hearing held on 30 June 2021. It explained that the delay in providing the resident the outcome of it, had been due to its investigation of the counter allegations made against him.
The landlord’s second complaint response, sent to the resident on 29 March 2022, stated that it had not provided the resident with the outcome of the grievance panel hearing because one had not taken place. The landlord’s inconsistent information, would have only added to the frustration and distress that the resident was already experiencing.
The resident had stated his belief that aspects of the ASB he said that he had been subjected to by other members of the house, had been discriminatory in nature and targeted at his impaired vision. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate this in line with its ASB policy, rather than further conflate it with the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s own actions, or lack thereof.
Nevertheless the landlord’s first complaint response did state that it had met with the other house members, and considered their comments to be inappropriate, but did not concur that they had been said in a discriminatory manner. Whilst the resident may have disagreed with this, the landlord did appropriately explain its position, and the resultant action it intended to take in terms of writing to the other house members.
The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s first complaint response on 21 September 2021. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to recognise this as a request by the resident for his complaint to be escalated to stage two of its complaint process, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord’s separate complaint policy implemented on 22 July 2021, was an improvement on what preceded it, however it effectively only had one stage. This meant that the landlord’s policy was not in line with the Code, and unreasonably deprived the resident of his right to have his complaint reviewed.
The Ombudsman has noted that since the resident’s complaint, the landlord has completed a self-assessment against the Code, and updated its policy to include a second stage, and more appropriate response timescales.
Following what should have been the resident’s stage two complaint escalation request on 21 September 2021, the landlord continued to unreasonably conflate its handling of his reports of ASB by other house members, with his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s approach to his reports.
Following the resident’s contact, this Service asked the landlord on 7 December 2021, to respond to the resident’s complaint within 20 working days. It was unreasonable that it took two further contacts from this Service, before the landlord responded to this Service, 78 days later, on 22 February 2022.
It was also unreasonable that this Service then needed to chase the landlord two further times in March 2022, before it issued its final complaint response to the resident on 29 March 2022, 189 days after he had made his escalation request.
The landlord’s final complaint response accepted that the changes to its policies and procedures had caused confusion and difficulties, and impacted it communications with the resident. The landlord appropriately apologised for these failings, but failed to make any offer of redress.
A compensation order has been made to this regard, which is based upon the Ombudsman’s Remedy Guidance. The Remedy Guidance considers ‘aggravating factors’, which recognise that the impact of a landlord’s failings on a resident will be unique to them, and affected by factors including vulnerabilities. The order also considers the time, trouble, and distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s poor record keeping, and its service failures and delays in handling the his reports of ASB and his associated complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
1. record keeping;
2. handling of the resident’s reports of discriminatory harassment and antisocial behaviour (ASB);
3. handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Reasons

It is of concern that the landlord was unable to provide key information requested by this Service, and that was needed to investigate the resident’s complaint. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s poor record keeping, particularly regarding the resident’s vulnerabilities and its actions in response to his reports of ASB, would have contributed to its wider service failings.
At the time when the resident first reported ASB and harassment, and made his complaint, the landlord’s policy inappropriately combined these two separate matters. The landlord’s transfer offer to the resident did appear to appropriately consider his vulnerabilities. Some of the landlord’s other actions may have also been in line with its policies. However its poor record keeping meant that it was mostly unable to demonstrate the decision making behind its actions, or in some cases the actions themselves. This would have left the resident feeling that the landlord acted unfairly and inconsistently, and would have added to the distress he had said that he was already experiencing.
Even after the landlord implemented more appropriate separate ASB and complaint policies, it continued to conflate the two matters. This contributed to the landlord’s ineffective handling of the resident’s complaint, and its responses to him were severely delayed. This would have added to the resident’s time, trouble, and distress in pursuing his complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that:
1. The landlord writes to the resident to apologise for the identified failings in this report.
2. The landlord pays the resident £500 compensation, made up of:
  1. £250 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failures identified in its record keeping and handling of the resident’s reports of ASB;
  2. £250 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failures identified in its record keeping and handling of the resident’s complaint.
It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears where they exist.
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.
The Ombudsman further orders that within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord reviews its record keeping processes against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report, and provides this Service with a copy of its findings.
The landlord should evidence compliance with this order to this Service within eight weeks of the date of this report.