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

Gateway Housing Association Limited (202232102)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232102

Gateway Housing Association Limited

23 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by a downstairs neighbour.
    2. Reports that allegations of ASB made against the resident were false and malicious.
    3. A request to remove a CCTV camera, put up by a neighbour in a communal area.
    4. Reports that landlord staff were harassing the resident, including by making requests for the resident to remove her own CCTV camera.
    5. The resident’s request to keep pets at the property.
    6. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in a flat and has a downstairs neighbour. It is understood that there was an ongoing ASB case at the time of the resident’s complaint, where the resident was alleged to be the perpetrator. The resident has several physical and mental health issues.
  2. On 13 February 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She stated that she was the victim of ASB from her downstairs neighbour, who she alleged had also made malicious reports of ASB against her. She complained that a neighbour had set up a CCTV camera in a communal space. She requested the downstairs neighbour be moved and the camera be taken down.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 February 2023. It stated that it:
    1. Had received no reports of ASB from the resident and gave her instructions of how to report any further incidents.
    2. Did not deal with ASB through the complaints procedure, but via its ASB policy.
    3. Would investigate reports of a camera in the communal area.
  4. On 2 March 2023 the resident requested to escalate her complaint, but did not provide a reason. The landlord called her on the same day to discuss her request, which it recorded as being about:
    1. A medical document which had been submitted to the landlord.
    2. That she had already submitted diary sheets.
    3. That a newly appointed staff member had not contacted the resident to ask for more information about her reports of ASB.
  5. The landlord responded at stage 2 of the complaints process on 11 May 2023. It stated that:
    1. It had done an “extensive search” but found no record of the medical document or diary sheets the resident said she had submitted. It invited her to resubmit these documents.
    2. The newly appointed staff member had contacted the resident in February 2023, however the resident had refused to provide any further detail.
    3. It was sorry there had been a delay in issuing her stage 2 response. It offered £50 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble.
  6. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 12 July 2023 and asked it to investigate. She contacted the Ombudsman periodically after this date to specify which concerns she wanted investigating, which are set out in the above complaint definition.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there has been a complaint handling failure. In this case, the resident raised concerns about a CCTV camera in a communal area, and concerns that ASB reports being made against her were false and malicious at stage 1, but did not raise these concerns again, so the landlord did not respond to them at stage 2. The resident also asked the Ombudsman to investigate the landlord’s request that she remove her own CCTV camera, which formed part of wider allegations of harassment by landlord staff. These concerns were not raised with the landlord until after the date of the stage 2 response, and do not appear to have completed the internal complaints process. As such, these elements of the complaint fall outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider (OSJ).
  2. Paragraph 42(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. The resident’s complaint about keeping pets at the property appears to primarily have been dealt with in 2016. There is no evidence that a request to keep pets, or an associated complaint, has been made more recently.

The landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) about a downstairs neighbour

  1. At the time of the resident’s complaint in February 2023, there is no evidence that the resident had made any prior reports of ASB by her downstairs neighbour. The nature of the ASB referenced in her complaint was non-specific. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out how the landlord should deal with reported incidents of ASB, which depends on the type of incident reported. The policy also defines which types of behaviour meet the threshold to be considered as ASB. Given that the resident had not provided detailed information of her reports, it was appropriate that it asked for more detail.
  2. Alongside the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord provided diary sheets, so that the resident could keep a record of any ASB she experienced. The landlord’s ASB policy states that in some types of ASB, for example noise, there must be a certain number of separate incidents which occur in a 7 or 28 day period, before it will carry out further investigations. Providing the resident with diary sheets was therefore an appropriate and helpful step.
  3. The resident complained at stage 2 that she had already given diary sheets to a staff member who had since left the landlord’s employment. The landlord explained it had looked for these, but had found no record of them. The landlord invited the resident to resubmit this information, which was appropriate. The resident did not provide evidence to the Ombudsman that these diary sheets had been completed and provided to the landlord. The Ombudsman has been therefore unable to investigate the resident’s concerns that reports of ASB were not acted upon appropriately at the time. There is no evidence that the resident submitted any further diary sheets after this time.
  4. The resident was also unhappy that a staff member had not contacted her to request more information about her reports of ASB. The landlord said the staff member had contacted her, but she had refused to provide more detail. There is no evidence to support this, however the resident was provided diary sheets and called by the landlord to discuss her concerns on 2 March 2023. As such, there was no adverse effect, as both of these actions gave an opportunity for the resident to provide more information. In conclusion, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, a finding of no maladministration is made.

Handling of the associated complaint

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the expectations of the landlord in handling complaints. This includes a requirement that landlords must respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord was right therefore to apologise for exceeding this timescale, as it took 10 weeks to issue its stage 2 response from the date of the resident’s escalation request. This delay was likely frustrating for the resident. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where there has been a minor failure in the service the landlord has provided, compensation of around £50 should be considered. The landlord therefore provided reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling.
  2. The Code states that when a complaint is made to the landlord it should be logged at stage one of the complaints process. Only when a resident is unhappy with that outcome, should it be progressed to stage 2 of the complaints process. The resident raised a number of new issues with the landlord in her escalation request which the landlord responded to at stage 2. The landlord should instead have only progressed the issues dealt with at stage 1, which the resident remained unhappy about, to stage 2. Meanwhile, it should have opened a new stage 1 complaint to consider any newly raised issues. However, as there was no significant adverse effect caused by this shortcoming, it does not constitute maladministration.
  3. The Code also states that the landlord must respond to all elements of a complaint. The resident complained initially that she was the victim of false and malicious reports of ASB against her. Her complaint implied that this formed part of the ASB she herself was experiencing. At stage 1 of the complaints process however, the landlord failed to adequately respond to this element. Again, there was no adverse effect caused by this oversight, as the resident had the opportunity to raise this again at stage 2 of the complaints process, but chose not to do so. A recommendation however is made below, for the landlord to consider if it would be appropriate to carry out any further staff training in complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
    1. Reports that allegations of ASB against the resident were false and malicious is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
    2. A request to remove a CCTV camera put up by a neighbour in a communal area, is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
    3. Reports that landlord staff were harassing the resident, including by making requests for the resident to remove her own CCTV camera, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to keep pets at the property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB against a downstairs neighbour.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. That the landlord considers if any additional staff training is required, in respect of its complaint handling, as a result of this investigation.