East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202332522)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332522

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

8 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) due to harassment and vandalism of her vehicle.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord and lives in a 4-bedroom house.
Between 2017 and 2022, the resident reported multiple incidents of ASB to the landlord mainly relating to noise nuisance. During this period the landlord communicated with different agencies including the police and environmental health. Actions taken during this time included mediation and signposting to different organisations such as the RSPCA.
Between 2022 and 2023 the resident also started legal action against her neighbour which dealt with some aspects of the ASB she had reported to her landlord. The resident was not successful with her legal action.
On 28 January 2022 the landlord advised the resident that it would not be looking to proceed with any other ASB reports unless she provided evidence that it felt would warrant further investigation. The landlord went on to say that it had concerns about the volume of contact from the resident and the clarity of reports being made. The landlord advised that going forward the resident should only provide reports that explained the details of a new allegation with a clear date, time, and evidence to support the specific allegation. The landlord asked that the resident not to provide footage or evidence that related to previous allegations.
On 17 July 2023 the resident contacted the Local Authority Community Safety Team (LACS) about repetitive vandalism of her vehicles. LACS responded and advised that the landlord would be better suited to help her with the matter. They also advised her to contact the police if she believed the damage was deliberate.
The resident responded the same day to say that the landlord had told her to contact the Local Authority as the neighbour (neighbour A) causing the damage to her vehicles was not a social housing tenant.
On 23 July 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and reported that neighbour A had damaged her car 9 times in less than 2 months. She also reported that a neighbour (neighbour B) had become verbally abusive toward her and a delivery driver.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s report the same day. It advised that the information had been passed to the “relevant officer” who would decide what action needed to be taken and would contact the resident if required. It advised the resident to call the police if it was an emergency.
The resident contacted LACS on 7 August 2023 to advise that the damage to her vehicles was still ongoing and that she would like an update on the actions being taken.
The LACS team contacted the landlord on 7 August 2023 and advised that they had received a report from the resident about ASB due to vehicle damage. LACS asked if contact could be made with the resident to offer support as she had contacted the landlord on numerous times but had received no response.
On 15 September 2023 the resident chased the landlord for a response to her 23 July 2023 email. The landlord responded the same day and thanked her for making it aware of the ASB. It advised the report would be reviewed by its ASB team and it was committed to working with the resident to develop a “tailored action plan” to resolve the issue quickly. It said that the action plan would:
1. Include any key timescales and highlight other partner agencies who would assist in the investigation.
2. Outline the resident’s responsibilities in terms of recording evidence and keeping the landlord regularly updated.
3. Explain how, when, and why it would share information.
The landlord went on to say that the severity of the report and quality of evidence would dictate the actions that it could take. However, if it could not assist the resident, it would signpost her to other relevant agencies. The landlord also provided its “Tackling ASB Together” information. This included contact numbers, response times and examples of what it would consider as ASB such as harassment and vandalism.
On 23 October 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and advised that she had reported an incident involving neighbour B gesturing in a threatening way toward her property. The resident advised that she had contacted the police who said that they could not proceed with any action as they were unable to identify the individuals involved. However, she had read the landlord’s ASB policy and would like to know what steps it was taking to resolve this matter. The resident also advised that she had not received any update or support in relation to neighbour A causing damage to her cars. She advised that the landlord should treat the email as a complaint due to a lack of action and communication.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 25 October 2023 to advise that a police officer had called her to discuss the landlord’s response and had told her that the landlord should be addressing the issue. The resident said that she would continue to report the ASB issues and that she would also apply for a community trigger. She advised that she was unhappy that no full response had been received to her report made on 23 July 2023.
The landlord responded on 27 October 2023. It advised that the issues the resident reported were similar to those it had already dealt with. The landlord referred to its communication from 28 January 2022 and advised the resident how reports of ASB needed to be made. The landlord said it was aware of court proceedings and was confident that issues the resident had raised would have been dealt with via the appropriate legal route.
The landlord went on to advise that there was limited action it could take regarding her reports as it would not consider these to be within the remit of ASB. It advised that in line with its policy if the resident had immediate safety concerns, she should report this to the police. If the police had any concerns about her reports, then it would welcome a discussion, but no contact from the police had been received.
The resident responded on 27 October 2023 to say that she had sent evidence of the ASB to the landlord as advised by the police. She also advised the landlord that the ASB she is now reporting was not related to her court case which dealt with noise nuisance.
On 31 October 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and advised that nobody had contacted her since 27 October 2023 to give any support or advice.
The landlord called the resident the same day and noted that she had raised a complaint about multiple reports of ASB not being actioned. The resident explained the ASB issues again to the landlord.
On 14 November 2023 the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. It recorded that the resident had raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of ASB relating to:
1. Repetitive and violent noise nuisance.
2. Dogs barking.
3. People going onto her property.
4. Following, watching and stalking.
5. Malicious and fictitious complaints.
6. Verbal abuse and foul language.
7. Intimidation.
8. Gaslighting.
The landlord repeated its statement from the 28 January 2022 email on how the resident should report ASB and said the issues relating to neighbour B would have been dealt with during court proceedings. It also repeated the action it could take about her reports of ASB was limited as it did not consider her reports to be within the remit of ASB that it would deal with.
The landlord then summarised its investigation into the 8 points labelled a to h above and advised that the resident’s complaint was not upheld. It explained there was insufficient evidence for them to prove the ASB and that each ASB report had been thoroughly investigated over the years and other agencies had been involved. It asked that the resident not send old footage related to previous allegations and only send footage which clearly demonstrates any new issue she was reporting.
The resident responded on 14 November 2023 and disagreed with the outcome of the stage 1 complaint. She advised that in her view the landlord had not adhered to its ASB policy or followed through with promises it had made in relation to the reports. She advised that the complaint was not about noise nuisance and that her complaint was solely about the car vandalism and harassment due to the gestures being made toward her and her property.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 14 December 2023. It explained that it had responded to the resident’s 23 July 2023 ASB report on 23 October 2023 and that it had urged the resident to avoid monitoring footage such as ring doorbells if it was causing her to feel upset. It also advised that it could not deal with previous complaints, that it was aware of a private legal case and that the resident should continue to contact the police. However, it acknowledged there was a delay in its response and so this element of complaint was partially upheld.
The landlord went on to advise its approach to the behaviour of the resident’s neighbours, stating that it had reviewed footage of a person walking up to her door and walking past her home and raising an arm. However, it could not conclude that this was intimidating behaviour or harassment. Therefore, it had signposted the resident to the police in relation to the matter. The landlord also explained it was correct for it to refer the resident to the police relating to the damage to her car as this was criminal damage.
As a resolution to the complaint the landlord offered:
1. £100 to recognise the delay in responding to the ASB report.
2. An offer of mediation to assist her living side-by-side with her neighbours.
3. £50 for the delay in offering mediation.
4. Details of the victim support and crime prevention service.
The resident has advised this Service that she is continuing to suffer from ASB.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

It is noted that there is a long history of ASB reports by the resident dating back to 2017. However, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from April 2023 which were considered as part of its recent complaint handling. There are 2 reasons for this:
1. Paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon. This Service has already considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB up to 14 January 2020 in previous determinations (201815855 and 201914425). Therefore, any incidents before this date would not be considered.
2. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. Incidents of ASB between January 2020 and April 2023 were not raised as part of the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord. Therefore, this investigation will focus on events after April 2023 and up to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response sent on 14 December 2023.
The resident has advised this Service that ASB continued after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. If the resident is unhappy with how the landlord has dealt with reports of ASB after 14 December 2023 then she should raise this as a new complaint with the landlord.

Handling of ASB reports

It is important to note that the role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported by the resident happened. This Service’s role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the reports was in line with its legal and policy obligations and if the response was fair in all the circumstances.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that there may be times where a report is made that the resident considers to be ASB but it does not meet the landlord’s definition. The policy states that the decision as to whether something is ASB will be made on a case-by-case basis. The landlord is ultimately responsible for deciding how a report should be categorised and what action it will take.
The resident made a report of ASB on 23 July 2023. This included that her car had been damaged 9 times in less than 2 months and that she had been subjected to verbal abuse and intimidating gestures. While the landlord acknowledged this report straight away, no follow up action or contact was made with the resident. This was unreasonable and did not follow the landlord’s ASB policy which sets out it would contact the resident within 10 working days of the report.
Despite the landlord being contacted by the Local Authority Community Safety Team on 7 August 2023, the resident had to chase the landlord for an update on her ASB report on 15 September 2023. This again showed a lack of proactive action by the landlord in handling the resident’s reports of ASB.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s reports on 15 September 2023 and said it was committed to working with her to develop an individually tailored action plan to resolve the issues that she had raised. However, there is no evidence that the landlord followed up this email to create such a plan or explain what alternate action was available. This was unreasonable and showed a lack of support at a time the resident was feeling vulnerable.
In this same email the landlord advised that depending on the severity of the issues reported and the quality of evidence there were several ways which it could help tackle the ASB. This included options such as mediation and support. However, these options were not offered to the resident until the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. This delay in offering options such as mediation was unreasonable and continued to leave the resident with a feeling that she was not being supported.
Because the landlord failed to follow up with its commitment of an action plan the resident raised a formal complaint on 23 October 2023. When the landlord initially responded on 27 October 2023 it said it would not consider the resident’s reports to be within the remit of ASB. However, this contradicted the information it provided on 15 September 2023 when it said that harassment and vandalism were issues that would be considered as ASB under its policy. The landlord failed to clearly explain the reasons why the resident’s reports did not constitute ASB under its policy. This lack of clear communication was unreasonable and added to the resident’s view that the landlord did not want to support her.
The landlord responded at stage 1 to the resident’s complaint on 14 November 2023 and at stage 2 on 14 December 2023. In its stage 2 response the landlord advised it could not deal with the report regarding vandalism of the resident’s car as this was criminal damage. It also stated it would be unable to deal with the reports of harassment as there was insufficient evidence to support the reports. The landlord advised the resident to contact the police about the matters as they would be best place to deal with her concerns. The landlord also reiterated its statement made from 28 January 2022 on how to make reports of ASB in the future. The landlord’s advice to notify the police about these reports was reasonable. It is right that if the resident feels in danger or suspects deliberate criminal damage that the police should be notified. It was also reasonable to reiterate how the resident could make an ASB report and the detail that would be required for the report to be fully investigated.
However, it should not have taken as long as it did for the landlord to provide the resident with some clarity on its response. Each report of ASB should be considered in line with its own ASB policy and the landlord should offer appropriate support at the earliest opportunity. For example, the support could be to review any evidence the resident has, provide diary sheets, signpost to relevant agencies, speak or write to the neighbour or consider mediation. The landlord missed opportunities to make resident feel listened to and supported even when no formal ASB action could be taken.
Additionally, the landlord has not shown that any risk assessment was carried out in relation to the resident’s reports. This is in contrast with its ASB policy which states that it would make an initial risk assessment at the point the resident makes an initial report, and then an allocated case officer would complete a full risk assessment. The policy says that the risk assessment will guide its case management response and the steps it would take to support the resident. The lack of a complete risk assessment adds weight to the view that the landlord did not respond to the resident’s ASB reports in a reasonable or proactive way.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord offered a total of £150 compensation for the delay in responding to the ASB report of 23 July 2023 and a delay in offering mediation. The landlord’s compensation policy suggests that where there has been a service failure which caused upset and had an impact on the resident that a payment between £50 and £250 is appropriate. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failings and offer consider remedy in line with its own guidance. However, the Ombudsman does not consider that the compensation offered is proportionate with the failings identified.
The landlord’s actions until its stage 2 complaint response was consistently poor. There was a lack of proactive engagement with the resident and the evidence shows that the landlord either failed or delayed responding to the resident’s reports of ASB. When it did respond the landlord promised to create an action plan but did not follow through with this commitment and it gave conflicting advice on whether the reports amounted to ASB under its policy. While the landlord may have felt the reports were vague or outside of its ASB policy, there is limited evidence of a person-centered approach or that it took the resident’s reports seriously. Therefore, taking all the circumstances into account this amounts to maladministration.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that a payment between £250 and £700 should be made where there has been maladministration but no permanent impact on the resident. Using this policy, the Ombudsman considers a payment of £600 to be a fair and reasonable figure, this figure includes the £150 already offered.

Complaint handling

The resident raised her complaint on 23 October 2023 and the landlord took 16 working days to respond to the complaint at stage 1. This was outside of the 10-working day timeframe set out in its complaint policy. In addition, the complaint response addressed multiple issues that the resident had not raised as part of her complaint. This showed a lack of care or understanding of the resident’s complaint and caused her some frustration.
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 November 2023 and the landlord took 22 working days to respond at stage 2. This was slightly outside of the timeframe set out in its complaint policy of 20 working days. The stage 2 response fully answered the resident’s complaint but did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay in providing the complaint responses. Taking all the circumstances into account this amounts to service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified.
2. Pay the resident a total of £650 in compensation, broken down as:
  1. £600 (inclusive of the £150 already offered) regarding its ASB handling.
  2. £50 regarding its complaint handling.
3. Contact the resident to establish if there is any ongoing ASB. If there is, the landlord should develop a tailored action plan for the resident’s ongoing ASB concerns. The action plan should be shared with the resident and this Service. The action plan should include:
  1. Any key timescales and highlight other agencies who may assist in any investigation.
  2. Outline the resident’s responsibilities in terms of recording evidence, the types of evidence required, when and how often to update the landlord.
  3. Information on how the landlord will use the information provided and when and why this would be shared.