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

Gentoo Group Limited (202204407)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204407

Gentoo Group Limited

11 November 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), and the associated transfer request.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord in a bungalow. The landlord recorded the resident as vulnerable due physical and mental health conditions.
  2. The resident reported she was experiencing ASB, in the form of noise disturbance, from her neighbour in June 2021.
  3. The resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB in August 2021. The landlord referred the resident to its ‘safety and support’ service, and awarded the resident priority banding on its internal transfer system in September 2021. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 7 September 2021, and set out the actions it had taken in relation to her reports of ASB. It explained it had awarded priority banding for an internal transfer. The resident was happy with the landlord’s complaint response and agreed for it to close the complaint.
  4. The resident moved to a new property in November 2021. The resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint on 12 October 2022. She said that she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the ASB case, that led to her move. She was also unhappy at the delay in providing her with £200 of decoration vouchers it had offered, and said this meant she was unable to properly furnish her home.
  5. The landlord send the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 27 October 2022. It apologised for the delay in providing the “correct amount of decoration vouchers”, but this was “resolved promptly” when it became aware. It apologised for a “lack of contact” with the resident during her ASB case, as the officer dealing with it was on sick leave. It set out the actions it took on the ASB case including mediation with her neighbour, a referral to a victim support officer, and a housing needs assessment that led to priority banding on its internal rehousing system.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response, and asked it to go to stage 2 on 8 November 2022. She said that she had to “repeatedly explain” she could not download the noise app on her phone, and with no recordings there was “no help”. She said that it was “paramount” for her safety to move, but had suffered “financial hardship” through no fault of her own.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 12 December 2022. It explained that it did not have sufficient evidence to take legal action against the resident’s neighbour. It explained as an alternative to the noise app, it sought noise monitoring equipment from the local authority. Due to the waiting list for the equipment, the resident had decided to move instead. It found it had appropriately handled the ASB case. It set out the help it had given towards redecoration and flooring costs, and explained it had referred her to its ‘money matters’ team in May 2022. It offered to a complete a further referral if the resident wanted it to.
  8. The resident contacted this Service on 26 June 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said her health had “declined severely” due to having to move. She was unhappy with the amount of help the landlord gave in furnishing her new property.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it adopts a multi agency approach to dealing with ASB. The policy states that residents reporting ASB will be risk assessed to ensure the appropriate level of support is provided.
  2. The landlord’s allocations policy states that a “band 2” housing need is classed as a “priority” for rehousing. It policy states it will award band 2 to its own tenants who need to move for a “welfare reason”.
  3. The landlord decorating cards procedure states that it can issue decoration cards to assist a resident with the cost of decoration when a property is identified as part of its allocations process. The policy does not set out an amount that is given for decoration, and sets out that the “level of award is appropriately justified and reasonable”.
  4. 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.
  5. It is evident that this situation was distressing for the resident. It is acknowledged that the resident does not believe that the landlord responded appropriately to her reports of ASB. The role of this Service is not 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. This investigation has considered whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  6. 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, the Ombudsman is unable to establish liability, so we cannot calculate or award damages. Nor can we evaluate medical evidence.
  7. On that basis, the resident’s concerns around damage to her health is beyond the scope of this assessment. The Ombudsman 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.
  8. The landlord first opened an ASB case for the resident in June 2021. As part of our investigation, we asked the landlord for evidence of any risk assessments of actions plans it had done. The landlord said it did not “hold any further evidence” of completing either an action plan or risk assessment on the case. This was a failure to apply its ASB procedure, and was unreasonable. This caused the resident an inconvenience, as the landlord did not take appropriate action, in line with its procedure, to progress her ASB case. It is noted that the landlord took other actions, in line with its policy, and ultimately moved the resident to a new property. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  9.  The evidence shows the landlord referred the resident and her neighbour to mediation in August 2021. This was an appropriate application of its ASB policy, and reasonable in the circumstances. That the landlord sought this as a possible early solution to the issue was reasonable. We note that the mediation was unsuccessful.
  10. The resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of her ASB case in July 2021, through her local councillor. She also expressed a concern that she was unable to use the noise app, as her phone was not compatible. The evidence shows the landlord responded to the query, and explained it had completed mediation with the residents. However, the landlord did not respond to the concerns about the noise app was unreasonable. There are also alternatives to gathering evidence where noise nuisance is concerned, such as asking the resident to keep a noise diary. From the evidence that is available, it is unclear why the landlord did not explore any alternatives given the difficulties and concerns that the resident had with the noise app.
  11. That the landlord referred the resident to its ‘victim support’ service in July 2021 was appropriate and evidence it took her reports of ASB seriously. This is evidence the landlord had due regard for the resident’s vulnerability and sought to minimise the impact the situation was having on her.
  12. The landlord decided to award the resident priority banding for a move, due to the ASB. Given the impact the situation was having on her, this was reasonable in the circumstances. The evidence shows that, at the time of its stage 1 complaint response of September 2021, the resident was satisfied with this outcome. We note the resident later stated she felt “forced” to move from her property. The serious nature of this claim is acknowledged, and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s concerns. It is not within the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether the resident was forced to move. However, the evidence shows that the resident was happy with the outcome of the stage 1 complaint in September 2021, and did not raise any concerns about the prospect of moving at that time.
  13. The resident moved to a new property in November 2021. That the landlord offered vouchers to assist with decoration costs, and offered to assist with flooring costs was appropriate in the circumstances. Its handling of the decoration voucher issue is assessed in greater detail below. However, that it made such an offer was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it applied its decoration policy.
  14. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 27 October 2022, set out its position on its handling of the ASB case and the actions it had taken, which was appropriate. However, it also admitted that there was a “lack of contact” with regards to her case. While it is noted the landlord set out that a manager “reviewed” the case, we have seen no evidence this was explained to the resident at the time. The resident was evidently inconvenienced by this lack of communication, which the landlord appropriately apologised for. Given it admitted a failing, that it did not offer redress was inappropriate.
  15. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response also admitted a failing in relation to the vouchers for decoration of the new property. It apologised for a delay in giving the correct amount, and set out that it “promptly” resolved the issue when it became aware. We welcome the fact the landlord sought to put this right once it became aware. However, as acknowledged in its complaint response, the resident was cost time and trouble by needing to raise these concerns before it put it right. That it did not offer redress for this admitted failing was unreasonable, and the landlord missed an opportunity to put things right for the resident.
  16. As part of our investigation, we asked the landlord for evidence of the decoration vouchers, and actions it took to resolve the acknowledged failing. The landlord was unable to provide any evidence of the decoration vouchers provided to the resident. This is a failing in its record keeping. Given the lack of available records, it is not possible to determine how it could set out that it “promptly” resolved any issues. Considering this failing, we have made an appropriate order below.
  17. As part of her stage 2 complaint, the resident raised concerns about the noise app again. The landlord used its stage 2 response, of December 2022, to set out its position, and explain it had explored alternative options for evidence capture. This went some way to putting right its earlier failings in relation to this matter. However, that it did not acknowledge its earlier shortcomings in relation to its communication about the noise app was inappropriate. The resident was inconvenienced by a lack of thorough investigation into her concerns.
  18. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response also failed to put right the failings in its stage 1 response in relation to the decoration vouchers. It is noted it used its response to set out its position on the assistance it had given. However, it failed to reflect on the fact its stage 1 response admitted a failing, but failed to offer appropriate redress for the admitted failing. The landlord missed an opportunity to put right the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the delay.
  19. The evidence shows the landlord took the resident’s reports of ASB seriously, but failed to risk assess the case in line with its ASB policy. The landlord referred the resident to the appropriate support services, and awarded her priority banding for a move. This is evidence it had due regard for her vulnerability, and the impact the situation was having on her.
  20. The landlord admitted failings in relation to its handling of the decorations vouchers, and its communication about the ASB case. That it did not offer appropriate redress for the inconvenience caused by its admitted failings was inappropriate. This lacked learning, and the landlord missed an opportunity to build trust with the resident. Considering the above failings, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter, and a series of appropriate orders are set out below.

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 ASB, and the associated transfer request.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £100 in recognition of the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its handling of the matter.
    3. Meet with the resident to discuss the decoration voucher issue. The landlord must consider whether it should provide the resident with further assistance with decoration vouchers, considering it is unable to provide evidence it gave the amount it offered.