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

East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202313586)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313586

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

22 May 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 reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  2. The Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder, having purchased her property in 1994. It is a 1-bedroom flat located on the ground floor of a block of flats. The landlord has advised that it has no record of the resident’s vulnerabilities. The resident is over 80 years old. On 21 September 2022 she contacted the landlord and told it that she was vulnerable, with a heart condition. She has been supported in raising her complaint by her daughter.
  2. Reports of ASB involving a neighbour (Ms A) were recorded by the landlord’s ASB team. Ms A lives in an adjoining block to that occupied by the resident. An ASB case record was opened on 11 May 2021. This captured complaints relating to excessive noise including loud music both day and night causing disruption to the lives of other residents within the block. The record shows that complaints were received from several neighbours. The landlord completed a risk assessment and action plan and issued an initial warning letter to Ms A.
  3. The resident first contacted the landlord to complain about Ms A on 24 August 2021. On this occasion she reported that Ms A was playing her music “very loud”, shouting, and having lots of people in and out of the block. She explained to the landlord that she had a heart condition and that the noise was making her feel unwell. The resident and other neighbours made further complaints in September and October 2021. The landlord visited Ms A to discuss her behaviour and the complaints it had received and a further letter was sent to her. The case was closed on 14 December 2021 as the landlord had not received any further complaints.
  4. The landlord reopened its ASB case record on 21 January 2022, following new reports of disturbances caused by Ms A. These included loud music, shouting and evidence of drunken behaviour. The record included a call from the resident’s daughter on 24 January 2022. In this she said that on the previous Friday Ms A had been playing her music all night, to a volume that could be “heard down the road”. She said that when Ms A had been asked to turn it down, she had made a threat of violence. Furthermore, Ms A was continuing to play her music at volume. The landlord discussed with the resident’s daughter the need to capture evidence of the noise nuisance and suggested the installation of noise monitoring equipment into her mother’s home. She agreed to this and the landlord advised that it would follow this up, taking “the necessary legal steps required ahead of installing the equipment”. This was not progressed.
  5. The landlord’s case record shows that Ms A was away from the property over the following months but on her return in June 2022 it once again received reports of ASB. Reports were made by a number of residents in June and July 2022. The landlord wrote to Ms A on 18 July 2022 regarding her behaviour and warning her that it was considering legal action. It arranged to visit her the following week but Ms A was not at home. Following further complaints about Ms A’s behaviour in September 2022 the landlord issued a notice of seeking possession (NOSP). Neighbours within the block, including the resident, continued to report incidence of ASB to the landlord through October, November, and December.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 16 January 2023 to report that she had been assaulted by Ms A on 14 January 2023 and that Ms A had been arrested. The records indicate that Ms A was released in February 2024 having been given a suspended sentence. Further reports of ASB caused by Ms A are then captured in May and June 2023.
  7. On 26 June 2023, the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord. They expressed the resident’s concern about the return of Ms A to her property, highlighting that she had been responsible for an assault on the resident and continuing ASB. It told the landlord that the resident’s heart condition had been exacerbated due to fear and stress caused by the situation. It asked the landlord to investigate and work with police to ensure the resident’s safety in her home. The landlord acknowledged this letter on 7 July 2023.
  8. The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 July 2023. It had treated her concerns as a formal complaint and therefore issued a stage 1 response accordingly. It set out her complaint as:
    1. That it had shown a lack of duty of care towards the resident following the attack on her. That she had been informed that Ms A would not return but she had. She had also informed the landlord of her heart condition.
    2. That Ms A had made threats to kill, was playing her music loud until 4am and had been seen naked in the communal grounds.
    3. That no action had been taken and that she wanted Ms A moved rather than evicted. She wanted “the problems to stop”.
  9. In its response the landlord said that it had spoken with its ASB team who had confirmed that it had received reports of nuisance periodically over the last 5 years. It said that it had taken a “multi agency approach in relation to this case, working closely with the police and statutory services”. The letter included a link to the support services that were available to the resident. It further said:
    1. That it had carried out interviews and issued both verbal and written warnings. It had also visited the block with the police.
    2. “We have considered safeguarding and support referrals. As you are aware there was a serious incident in January 2023 involving an assault. We discussed that incident with you. At the time you advised that the police had completed the relevant referrals and that there was no further action you wanted us to take”.
    3. It had applied to the court for an injunction and was currently awaiting a further hearing date as it had not been granted an injunction at the first hearing date.
    4. It was unable to make a tenant move and that it was dealing with the concerns raised through the county court. It said that it would keep the resident updated on its progress and that the local team would be arranging a meeting locally.
  10. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 2 August 2023. She said that she had been the victim of the assault referred to in the landlord’s stage 1 letter and that Ms A had been convicted of this. She denied that she had told the landlord that she did not want further action taken and stated that she wanted Ms A to be evicted. She asked the landlord to explain why it appeared to be “dragging its feet” and why the injunction was not already in place, when Ms A was again due to be released from prison. She said that residents had not been kept informed and she should not feel threatened in her own home. The landlord acknowledged her letter on 18 August 2023.
  11. In its stage 2 response sent to the resident on 19 September 2023 the landlord provided responses to each of the points raised and said that it was sorry that she remained dissatisfied. It said that:  
    1. It was its usual practice, where complaints are raised via an MP, to write directly to the MP and also to send a reply to the resident concerned. It shared an extract of the letter sent to the MP which said “… as you are aware there was a serious incident in January 2023 involving an assault…”. It went on to say that it had written to the resident on the same day and that letter had not contained this comment. It apologised for any confusion.
    2. The “no further action” comment included in the letter to the resident referenced safeguarding for her as these steps had been put in place by the police. This did not mean that it would be taking no further action in regard to Ms A. It apologised for the confusion and distress that this comment may have caused and thanked the resident for clarifying that she wanted the landlord to take action.
    3. There had been legal reasons for the delay in obtaining an injunction as its without notice application had been refused and there had then been 2 adjournments. It said that a new hearing date had been set for 27 September 2023. It acknowledged that legal remedies could have been carried out quicker and confirmed that the complexities with the case had been discussed with the resident through a recent visit.
    4. It apologised that the resident felt that she had not been kept informed and acknowledged that this was the case. She had not been updated as to next steps and its communication had been unclear. It confirmed that senior management now had oversight of the case and a new ASB officer had been put in place. He would agree a new action plan with the resident and make contact every 2 weeks.
    5. In line with its compensation policy it offered her £500 for the lack of communication and delays. It offered a further £50 in recognition of the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused.
  12. The resident raised her complaint with this Service on 22 November 2023. In this she said that she had to involve her MP for her complaints to be taken seriously. She said that there was a lack of duty of care towards her by her landlord. Furthermore, she had on several occasions provided an account of the assault, in addition to the statement she had given to the police and she felt that she was not being believed. Most recently she had been asked to give a statement on 23 October 2023. She understood that Ms A’s repeated prison sentences had made legal action difficult but that the ASB had been ongoing for a number of years. Although she had accepted the compensation she felt that this was “insulting”.
  13. In submitting evidence to the Service, the landlord has said that Ms A is currently away from her property and as a result it has received no recent reports of ASB. It is continuing to pursue legal action.

Assessment and findings

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

  1. It is acknowledged that the ASB the resident has reported has had a profound impact on her over a long time. However, when considering complaints relating to ASB, it is not the role of the Service to reach a decision on whether they have occurred. Instead, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. This report will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action and followed good practice.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as “conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person”. The policy says that it takes a “harm centred approach” and that it will “judge how serious a matter is based on the behaviour type and the impact that the behaviour is having”. In responding to reports of ASB it says that it will aim to act as “quickly and decisively as we are able in each given situation and that it will use a wide range of informal and legal tools…”. Its aim is to be consistent and proportionate in its response. The policy further confirms that all its occupancy agreements contain grounds relating to the expected behaviour of its residents.
  3. At point 4.10, the policy says that “when managing cases involving perpetrators with support needs, we adopt a twin-track approach, meaning that enforcement and intervention can be taken at the same time. Its priority is to stop the ASB and harm to complainants”.
  4. The landlord’s case record captures the detail of each reported incident of ASB involving Ms A. This was opened in May 2021, briefly closed in December 2021, and reopened in January 2022. The landlord recorded a number of complainants on the case, indicating the significant impact that Ms A’s behaviour was having on other residents both within her own block but also in the neighbouring block occupied by the resident. The initial actions taken by the landlord were appropriate in visiting and writing to Ms A to highlight her behaviour and the impact on the resident and others. It further records working with other agencies to address her behaviour and that the landlord was part of a multi agency partnership.
  5. It is noted that there are a number of complexities in this case. Ms A had been frequently absent from her property leading to a cessation in the ASB for short periods. The issues complained about then reoccurred on her return. The landlord took positive steps in completing a risk assessment following the reports of ASB received and this was regularly reviewed. It also noted in its case records that it has agreed an action plan with the resident and the other reporting parties but no evidence of this has been provided to the Service. There is also recognition of the vulnerabilities identified by a number of the parties involved, including the resident, her neighbours and Ms A.
  6. In October 2022, ahead of the expiry of the notice, the landlord was in contact with the police about Ms A. In this it highlighted that many of Ms A’s neighbours were reluctant to provide witness statements at that time to support any legal action against Ms A. It asked if the police could provide a community impact statement, which it agreed to. In late December 2022, the landlord noted that it was collating information for a referral to its solicitors to commence possession proceedings against Ms A. It is unclear from the evidence provided if this action progressed at this time.
  7. Following the assault on the resident in January 2023, Ms A was arrested and charged. The landlord visited the resident on 27 January 2023 and took a statement of what had happened. There is no evidence that the landlord revised its risk assessment, or of the next actions taken by it following this incident. It would have been appropriate, and in accordance with its policy, for it to have sought an injunction at that time, even while Ms A remained in custody as it was not known when she was likely to return. That it did not do so was a failing.
  8. The landlord recorded further contact with the resident on 27 February 2023, following the release and return to her flat of Ms A. It advised the resident that it would consider an injunction if there were further incidents, while it awaited possession action. It followed up with the resident on 3 March 2023 when she confirmed that there had been no further issues with Ms A.
  9. The ASB case record and internal emails show that the landlord commenced proceedings to obtain a civil injunction against Ms A in early July 2023. On 6 July 2023, the police obtained a criminal behaviour order (CBO) against Ms A which placed a number of restrictions on her behaviour. The landlord wrote to all residents of the block on 27 July 2023 to inform them that the CBO was in place. The letter confirmed that the landlord was working jointly with the police as incidents reported to it “had elements of criminal activity”. It acknowledged residents’ frustrations at how long its actions had taken but explained that it had to act in “a lawful and proportionate way”. The landlord has confirmed that it has continued to progress with legal action, including possession proceedings against Ms A. As she is currently away from the property this action has been adjourned while the landlord gathers further information to allow it to go ahead. The landlord has also advised that it remains in contact with the resident to keep her informed of its progress.
  10. Given the period over which the landlord received reports of ASB caused by Ms A it should reasonably have taken more timely action once it became clear that its warning letters and the service of a NOSP had not led to a change in Ms A’s behaviour. That it did not proceed with legal action in light of the assault on the resident and the level of reporting from other neighbours affected, was a significant failing and may have led to an earlier resolution. There is also evidence that the landlord failed to maintain regular contact with the resident and others within the block to keep them updated on the progress of the landlord’s actions. This was acknowledged by the landlord in its complaint response to the resident. This amounts to a maladministration by the landlord.
  11. In its response at stage 2 the landlord offered the resident £550 compensation. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation for the failings it had identified. Given that this investigation has identified additional failings, which have been the cause of detriment to the resident, an order for further compensation has been made.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints policy. Under this it says that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord accepted the letter from the resident’s MP as her stage 1 complaint. Its acknowledgement was sent 10 working days after the date of that letter with a further 10 working days elapsing before it provided its reply. There was no acknowledgement of the delay in its reply or an apology offered. This was inappropriate in the circumstances. There was a significant delay in acknowledging the resident’s request to escalate her complaint and a reply was provided some 34 days after her request. Again, the landlord’s response failed to acknowledge the delay and its failure to follow its complaints policy.
  2. It is noted that in its stage 2 response the landlord said that there had been confusion between the letter sent to the MP and that sent to the resident. It said it had not included the statement “as you are aware there was a serious incident in January 2023 involving an assault”. This is incorrect based on the copy of the letter supplied to this Service. This challenge of the fact and the tone of the letter demonstrates a lack of empathy for the situation faced by the resident. It is important that the landlord ensures that its letters are targeted appropriately to its audience. It has not recognised the upset that the wording of its letter was likely to cause, either by including this text at stage 1 or by its denial at stage 2.
  3. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints. It failed to follow its published timescales or deliver a response that reflected a genuine understanding of the impact of the ASB on the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the identified failings. This should be in line with the Service’s Guidance on remedies.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £550 compensation broken down as follows:
      1. £200 for the distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to take timely action to her reports of ASB.
      2. £350 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its poor complaint handling.
    3. This award is in addition to the £550 already paid to the resident by the landlord.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must: 
    1. Undertake a review of its handling of the reported ASB in this case, considering what other interventions it could have put in place to protect residents. This should include a review of the timeliness of its actions. It should also agree a future action plan with the resident and the frequency with which it will provide her with updates.