Ekaya Housing Association Limited (202219035)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219035

Ekaya Housing Association Limited

20 May 2025  

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. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in flat in a block. The resident’s reports of ASB mostly related to the actions of a neighbour’s household member. For clarity, the neighbour’s household member is referred to Mr A in this report. The resident’s neighbour is referred to as Ms B.
4. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 November 2021 and reported since Ms B had moved in to the property she had experienced the frequent smell of cannabis coming from her property. She said she suspected Mr A was the cause as it did not happen when he was out. The landlord wrote a warning letter to Ms B on the same day, and supplied the resident with diary sheets to report further incidents.
5. Between 22 November 2021 and 2 January 2023, the resident provided diary sheets which documented approximately 206 instances of smelling cannabis and several reports of a noise disturbance. During this period, the landlord took the following actions:
   1. Wrote a warning letter to Ms B on 26 November 2021 reminding her of her tenancy responsibilities and asked Mr A to stop smoking cannabis at the property (she had admitted he was doing so in a phone call).
   2. Wrote a warning letter to Ms B on 22 December 2021 due to repeat reports of the smell of cannabis from her property.
   3. Wrote a warning letter to Ms B on 15 February 2022 due to repeat reports of the smell of cannabis.
   4. Attended Ms B’s property to interview her about the repeat reports of the smell of cannabis.
   5. Following an alleged report of intimidating behaviour from Mr A to the resident on 29 May 2022, it wrote a “final warning” letter to Ms B. Advising it would pursue eviction proceedings if Mr A continued to breach her tenancy conditions.
   6. Wrote a warning letter to Ms B on 22 August 2022 about leaving the window in the communal corridor open.
6. The resident made a complaint on 9 January 2023. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB. She said it had not taken the appropriate action and the smell of cannabis was affecting her sleep and mental wellbeing. The landlord sent the resident a letter on 18 January 2023 outlining the actions it had taken in relation to her reports of ASB. It advised her to report any further allegations of the smell of cannabis or vandalism to the police. It offered the resident mediation with Ms B. It also apologised for its communication about the actions it was taking in the ASB case. The landlord also sent Ms B another warning letter on 18 January 2023.
7. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 14 February 2023. It apologised its handling of the ASB case was “below the standard required”. It accepted it failed to provide updates in a timely manner, but said it had investigated and handled the case in line with its ASB policy. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response and asked it to open a stage 2 complaint, the exact date she did this is unclear.
8. Ms B moved out of the property in May 2023.
9. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint responses on 14 November 2023. At the resident’s request it sent 2 separate complaint responses for its handling of the ASB case and its complaint handling. For clarity, a summary of both response is included below:
   1. It accepted it had given “poor advice” in relation to the ASB case. it had captured “key lessons” to inform its ASB training for staff.
   2. It accepted it had not informed her about the “many occasions” it had issued warning to Ms B. It gave a history of the warnings it had issued to Ms B.
   3. It offered £50 in compensation for its handling of the ASB case.
   4. It explained it had not dealt with the resident’s complaint of 9 January 2023 as a complaint and did so as an “ASB query”.
   5. Her request for an escalation “sat outside” the complaints procedure.
   6. Her stage 3 complaint request, from February 2023, was logged as a stage 1 complaint.
   7. It apologised for its complaint handling and said its process needed “improvement”. It offered £50 in compensation for its complaint handling.
10. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response and asked it to open a stage 3 complaint on 2 December 2023. The landlord sent the resident its stage 3 complaint response on 22 March 2024 and said:
    1. There were failures in its handling of the ASB case and said it should have provided more timely communication and quicker follow ups.
    2. It found its offer of mediation to be inappropriate.
    3. It apologised for its poor communication about installing a padlock on the communal garden gate.
    4. It found its offer of compensation made at stage 2 was not sufficient and made an increased offer of £400 in compensation for its handling of the ASB case.
    5. It said it treated her complaint about its handling of the ASB case in January 2023 as a report of ASB and not a formal complaint. It accepted the complaint was not logged and escalated correctly.
    6. It made an increased offer of compensation for its complaint handling of £200.
    7. It also made a further £150 offer of compensation as a good will gesture for the “overall service failure and distress caused”.
11. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response and asked us to investigate on 30 April 2024. She said she was unhappy its complaint handling and its handling of the ASB case.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

12. The resident exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure on 22 March 2024, and asked us to investigate the landlord’s handling of the ASB case and the associated complaint on 30 April 2024. The above matters are the focus of this investigation. The resident provided us with information about complaints she raised in September and October 2024 about services charges, a communal door, and an alleged data breach. The above complaints relate to matters raised after the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure for this complaint. They are therefore not within the scope of this investigation.
13. From the information available it is unclear if the above complaints have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. If the resident remains unhappy after these matters have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure she may wish to contact us so we can open a new investigation.
14. Throughout her complaint, the resident raised a concern that the ASB was impacting on her health, and the landlord’s handling of the matter increased the impact. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, unlike a court, we are unable to establish liability, so we cannot calculate or award damages. Nor can we evaluate medical evidence.
15. On that basis, the resident’s concerns around damage to her health is beyond the scope of this investigation. We can assess whether a landlord offered sufficient redress for the distress and inconvenience it caused. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she wishes to pursue this matter further.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

16. The Government’s ‘Putting Victims First’ guidance states that reported incidents of ASB should be “risk assessed at the earliest opportunity” to ensure an appropriate response. The Government’s ASB guidance for frontline professionals states that when an ASB case needs further actions, an action plan should be completed, and shared with the complainant.
17. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will work in partnership with he police and other agencies to respond to reports of ASB. It says it will encourage resident’s to talk to the alleged perpetrators where appropriate to do so.
18. It is evident that this situation was distressing for the resident. We acknowledge that the resident does not believe the landlord responded appropriately to his reports of ASB. It is outside our remit to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring, or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations. and whether it was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
19. From the resident’s first report of ASB in November 2021 and throughout late 2021 and 2022 the evidence shows the landlord sent regular warning letters to Ms B. The evidence shows it also did unannounced visits and did not witness evidence of the alleged ASB (smells associated with cannabis smoking).
20. The landlord needed evidence in order to progress with an ASB case, and encouraged the resident to provide evidence throughout. When the resident did supply evidence the landlord gave it the appropriate consideration. However, its communication about its findings, and the ASB case more generally was poor. It did not provide regular updates about the actions it was taking, although we accept it did provide updates in November 2021, December 2021, February 2022 and June 2022. It was inappropriate it did not provide the resident with an update following its interview of Ms B in March 2022. The evidence shows the landlord was taking the resident’s concerns seriously and taking appropriate actions in line with the evidence it had. However, its poor communication means it missed an opportunity to reassure the resident it was taking her concerns seriously.
21. There is also no evidence to indicate the landlord conducted a risk assessment or did an ASB action plan, in line with accepted best practice. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, this was inappropriate. This caused the resident an inconvenience as she was left not knowing the actions the landlord planned to take in her case, and was not given formal advice about steps she could take. Had the landlord completed action plans this may have helped in its communication with the resident and reassure her it was taking actions in her case. We recommend the landlord completes training with its staff responsible for dealing with ASB about importance of risk assessing and action plans.
22. The landlord’s handling of the alleged incident of verbal abuse and intimidation of 29 May 2022 was unreasonable. We acknowledge it was appropriate to issue Ms B with a final warning. However, it was unreasonable it did not complete a risk assessment given the nature of the allegation. It was also inappropriate it did not seek more information from the police given the resident had provided a crime reference number. We note it did contact the police in January 2023 to ask it to complete more regular patrol by the property. However, it failure to contact the police about this incident is a concerning failing.
23. The landlord’s letter of 18 January 2023 went some way to putting right its earlier poor communication about the ASB case. The appropriateness of not issuing a formal complaint decision in response to a clear complaint from the resident is assessed in the complaint handling section of this report. However, to apologise and show transparency about its errors was appropriate and showed learning. The landlord’s offer of mediation made in the letter was inappropriate considering the concerns the resident had raised. The resident had alleged an incident of verbal abuse and intimidation from Mr A. Had the landlord conducted a risk assessment on receipt of this allegation it may have helped it to respond more appropriately to the case.
24. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response in February 2023 restated the failings it had identified in its earlier letter. While appropriate to acknowledge these errors and apologise it was unreasonable not to offer compensation for its admitted failings. The landlord missed an opportunity to put things right for the resident.
25. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response offered more detail about its failings and showed learning. It was appropriate to explain it would use its findings to inform its future training. This is evidence it sought to reassure the resident it had learnt from the outcomes of her case. While we welcome the fact it offered compensation for its accepted failings, the offer of £50 did not fully put things right.
26. The landlord’s stage 3 complaint response offered a detailed assessment of its handling of the case. It restated the learning it had done, and appropriately acknowledged the offer of compensation did not fully put things right. It was reasonable to make an increased offer of compensation. It offered £400 for its handling of the ASB case and a further £150 for overall distress caused by errors in its handling of the ASB and complaint handling. Considering what is reasonable in the circumstances we have decided to evenly split the £150 good will offer between the two aspects of this complaint. Therefore, the landlord offered a total of £475 in compensation for its handling of the ASB case.
27. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. The landlord’s offer was at the upper end of this scale. Considering the failings identified above we have decided the landlord’s offer of compensation was appropriate to put right the errors in its handling of the ASB case.

Complaint handling

28. At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord operated a 3 stage complaints procedure. Its procedure said it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days. Its stage 3 complaint process involved the complaint being heard by a complaint panel. Its policy said it the panel would take place within 30 working days of receipt of the stage 3 complaint.
29. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), at that time, stated that 2 stage complaints procedures are “ideal”, and “complaints should only go to a third stage if the resident has actively requested” it. The Code states landlord’s must sent stage 3 responses within 20 working days. It is worth noting that the landlord has since changed its policy and now operates a 2 stage complaints procedure that is compliant with the Code. As such, we see no need to make an order in relation to its complaints procedure.
30. The resident first reported experiencing ASB in November 2021. It was therefore unreasonable for the landlord not to treat the resident’s letter of 9 January 2023 as a complaint. Especially considering she expressed clear dissatisfaction with its handling of the ASB case up to that point. This is evidence the landlord operate an obstructive and hard to access complaints process. This inconvenienced the resident and she was further inconvenienced by the need to raise her complaint several times before it issued a stage 1 response.
31. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was sent 27 working days after it was made. This was outside of the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code. It was inappropriate the landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its complaint response. It is worth noting any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident, overall, the delay was not excessive.
32. The resident asked the landlord to open a stage 2 complaint before she received a formal stage 1 response. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s approach to the resident’s complaint letter of 9 January 2023 caused confusion. It responded on 18 January 2023 but not as a formal complaint response. This approach inconvenienced the resident as she was evidently of the view she had received its formal response, only for it to then open a complaint investigation.
33. The resident was further inconvenienced by the need to seek assistance from us, in October 2023, in order to get the landlord to respond at stage 2 of its complaints procedure. It is worth noting the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was sent within a reasonable timeframe after our intervention. The landlord appropriately apologised and offered compensation for its errors in its complaint handling up to that point. However, considering the difficulty the resident experienced in getting responses to her complaints, its offer at stage 2 did not fully put things right.
34. The landlord sent the resident its stage 3 complaint response on 22 March 2024. This was 77 working days after she made her stage 3 complaint. This was a failing in its complaint handling and an unreasonable delay in what was already a protracted complaints process. We welcome the fact it made an increased offer of compensation for its handling of the stage 1 and 2 complaints. However, it was a shortcoming in its response it did not apologise or offer compensation for the delay in sending its stage 3 complaint response.
35. The landlord offered a total of £275 in compensation for errors in its complaint handling (an explanation about the additional £75 is set out above). In line with our remedies guidance, as set out above, the landlord’s offer of compensation was appropriate in the circumstances. However, we have decided there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling due to its failure to acknowledge the delay at stage 3. Considering the amount of compensation the landlord offered, in line with our remedies guidance, we have not made orders for additional compensation for complaint handling.

Determination

36. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress, which in our opinion, resolved errors in its handling of the resident’s reports ASB.
37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

38. Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident the £275 in compensation it offered in recognition of the errors in its complaint handling (if it has not already done so).

Recommendations

39. We recommend the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident the £475 in compensation it offered for errors in its handling of the ASB case (if it has not already done so).
    2. Updates its ASB policy to include the completion of action plans and risk assessments in line with accepted best practice.
    3. Instructs its staff responsible for dealing with ASB cases to complete training in relation to accepted best practice for dealing with ASB cases.