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

Halo Housing Association Limited (202221738)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221738

Halo Housing Association Limited

14 June 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.
  2. The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord. The property is a one-bedroom flat within a supported living scheme of 8 flats for residents with autism. The scheme has a communal hub and a staff office. A care provider is on site and provides 24-hour care to all residents. The resident’s father made the reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and raised the complaint with the landlord on the resident’s behalf. For the purposes of this report, the resident’s father will be known as the representative.
  2. The representative raised a complaint with the landlord on 26 May 2023. He stated he had made many reports of ASB that the resident had experienced since March 2022 and no action had been taken. He said the resident’s health had been affected and so had his, which he attributed to the stress of the resident’s situation.
  3. The landlord replied to the resident’s email on 15 June 2023. It said it could not share details about other residents but stated it was exploring all options and working with partner agencies. The landlord said there was a lot of activity with partner agencies as the representative was aware. It reassured the representative that the concerns were being taken seriously and each time an incident was reported it was investigated immediately. The landlord reminded the representative of the support needs and vulnerabilities of its residents and stated on occasions when resident’s health deteriorates, they may cause a disturbance. It encouraged the representative and the resident to contact the on-site staff if they had any concerns about what was happening as the on-site staff could offer immediate reassurance and further support to the resident, if required. The landlord said it had attempted to talk to the resident about her concerns on numerous occasions, but the resident did not want to engage.
  4. On 6 July 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response following a prompt from this Service. The landlord said every time it received an email it had contacted the care provider to bring it to their attention and find a solution as the care provider was best placed to deal with the issues that had occurred. It said that any behaviours that had caused nuisance would not have been deliberate. The landlord stated that due to the nature of the supported living scheme there would be times when there are disturbances, and that care staff sought to ensure the impact on other residents was kept to a minimum. It had been in contact with the resident’s and the other tenant’s social worker and all professionals were working together for the best solution for all residents. The landlord said it treated all reports of alleged ASB seriously and followed the reports through with the care provider. It said enforcement action was taken where appropriate.
  5. The representative escalated this complaint to stage 2 on 25 July 2023. He felt the stage 1 response had not appropriately addressed certain issues. On 14 August 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It noted that the representative’s emails had been sent to multiple staff at once and directed the representative to one point of contact. The landlord acknowledged not all the representative’s emails had received a response, but every matter reported had been logged and actioned. It explained it was unable to discuss individual circumstances of other residents but advised that all reports of ASB were investigated in line with its ASB policy. The landlord was satisfied incidents had been handled correctly and said any action needed to be reasonable, justified and proportionate. It said the resident received the same reasonable assessments should there be any reports about her behaviour. The landlord explained supported living schemes presented challenges due to the nature of their purposes. It said the representative had attended a meeting of professionals where a plan was put in place for the resident.
  6. On 22 August 2023 the representative contacted this Service as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. He felt the landlord had not addressed what he had raised in his complaint about the behaviour of a former tenant and two current tenants. The representative said the landlord had not provided an explanation or corrective measure when it acknowledged it had not replied to some of the representative’s emails. He was dissatisfied that no action had been taken on the video evidence submitted. The outcome the representative wanted was an investigation into the landlord’s failure to address a former tenant’s actions and a current tenant to be evicted.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The representative referenced in his correspondence to this Service that he wanted an investigation into the landlord’s handling of a former tenant’s actions referencing incidents that dated back to 2021. This was not what the representative complained about in his formal complaint to the landlord on 26 May 2023. This complaint related to a current tenant’s behaviour.
  2. Paragraph 42a of the Scheme sets out that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion 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“. As such, this Service is unable to consider matters relating to the former tenant. This investigation focuses on the concerns the representative raised in his complaint dated 26 May 2023 and up to 14 August 2023 when the landlord issued its final response.
  3. The representative advised that this matter had affected his health. There is no landlord and tenant relationship between the representative and the landlord, therefore, it is outside of this Service’s remit to be able to consider this.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s representative’s reports of antisocial behaviour.

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy defines the term anti-social behaviour as “actions that unreasonably interfere with or could interfere with an occupier’s normal use and enjoyment of their home, garden, or neighbourhood. The definition extends to behaviour that can create a nuisance or annoyance for another person connected with the property, including [landlord] staff and contractors”.
  2. In its ASB policy, the landlord states “Not all reports relating to behaviour that impacts on an individual can be deemed anti-social behaviour. It is important to show tolerance and be respectful of differing lifestyles and circumstances. As [landlord] specialises in supported accommodation, [landlord] understands that due to the very nature of the provided services not all incidents are necessarily defined as ASB. Extra care is taken to provide tenants with complex and additional needs the support and protection they require”.
  3. On 30 April 2023 the representative sent some video recordings and texts from the resident to the landlord. On 4 May 2023 the landlord advised the representative that the recordings were of a tenant suffering a relapse and as it was supported living scheme this disturbance was not deemed a breach of tenancy. The landlord reiterated this in it stage 1 response on 6 July 2023 as it assured the resident and the representative “that any behaviours that are causing a nuisance to other residents, are not a deliberate attempt to cause alarm or distress”.

This was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy which sets out that “sounds connected to disabilities” are not deemed ASB and “[landlord] understands that there might be times of distress to our tenants. [Landlord] therefore understands that during these times, our tenants sounds and actions could be perceived as acts of ASB. However, assurance is provided that in these circumstances our tenants are well supported, by either their care provider or other suitable organisations. The very nature of supported living arrangements is there to allow our tenants the ability to live independently. We understand that at times of distress this could be misconceived as a nuisance or act of ASB”.

  1. The representative sent a large volume of emails to the landlord containing messages he had received from the resident regarding other tenants’ behaviour. These emails were often sent to many recipients including several members of staff at the landlord, the care provider, the local council, a support charity, an MP and the police. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged not all the representative’s emails had received a response. However, it stated that the emails had been “efficiently logged” and forwarded to the relevant person. This Service has seen evidence to support this. To improve communication and to address the issues that sending emails to multiple recipients can cause, the landlord asked the representative to contact a designated member of staff. The landlord provided the representative with the name and email address of that staff member. This was appropriate and reasonable. However, putting this in place earlier would have been beneficial for both parties.
  2. The evidence provided by the representative showed that not all his emails were sent to the landlord. There were occasions such as 3 July 2023 and 16 July 2023 when the landlord was not included on the distribution list. The Ombudsman recognises that when this happened the landlord was not aware of the reports and was unable to respond accordingly.
  3. On 8 March 2023, over two months prior to the representative making his complaint, the landlord met with the care provider to discuss the representative’s ongoing concerns. At this meeting the landlord arranged to hold monthly meetings with the care provider to discuss any issues the resident or her representative may have raised and to find solutions to these matters. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s ASB policy which states it will “operate a multi-agency approach” and “will request from any care provider or interested agency relevant data, to maintain their records and provide the best service possible in accordance with the tenants needs”.
  4. As referenced in the landlord’s stage 1 response issued on 6 July 2023, the evidence showed the landlord liaised with the care provider when it received reports from the representative. This was appropriate. This enabled the landlord to get a better understanding of what had occurred on-site and to decide if any action was needed. This was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy which says it “will work closely with the care provider early on”. After contacting the care provider, the evidence showed that the landlord would reply to the representative.
  5. On 4 April 2023 the representative advised the landlord that the resident had reported a disturbance which occurred the previous night. In response to this the landlord had a meeting with the care provider on 6 April 2023. The landlord contacted the representative after the meeting and updated him. On 30 April 2023, the representative sent the landlord and other agencies some video recordings and texts from the resident which said she felt she could not leave her flat due to another resident. The landlord replied on the same day. It advised the representative it had been in touch with the care provider, there were no issues on site and the resident was freely moving around the building. The landlord suggested a meeting with the representative, the care provider and the resident’s social worker to discuss his concerns. This was appropriate and a resolution-focused approach. There were other examples of similar responses to the representative from the landlord in the evidence.
  6. On 4 May 2023, 16 June 2023 and in both stage 1 and stage 2 responses the landlord explained to the representative the complex and additional needs of the tenants within the supported living scheme and the need for reasonable, justified and proportionate action. It was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to have managed the representative’s expectations regarding disturbances at the supported living scheme and the action it could take. This was also in line with its ASB policy which states it will support complainants by “managing their expectations and being realistic about what we can and can’t do”.
  7. The landlord signposted the representative to the care provider should he or the resident have any concerns that required an immediate response. This was appropriate as the care provider was on-site and provided 24-hour care and support. This was in line with the landlord’s policy which stated one way it would support complainants was by “signposting and referring to other agencies”.
  8. The landlord’s ASB policy has a focus on partnership working and supporting both complainants and perpetrators. The evidence showed the landlord proactively sought advice from social workers. It also frequently requested multi-disciplinary team meetings to address concerns that the representative had raised and to ensure appropriate support was in place for the resident and other tenants within the scheme. Professionals’ meetings to discuss the representative’s concerns were held on 16 May 2023, 30 June 2023 and 26 July 2023, the latter of which the resident’s representative attended. This approach was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy which states “We will work in partnership with statutory organisations, partnering agents, community groups, professional bodies, and other stakeholders to support individuals who report ASB, witnesses and perpetrators’ and to manage behaviour”.
  9. The representative frequently asked what action the landlord had taken and asked for other tenants to be evicted. In its stage 2 response the landlord advised the representative its approach needed to be reasonable, justified and proportionate. It stated the resident also received the same reasonable assessments for her behaviour. This was appropriate because the landlord’s ASB policy states that “our response to allegations of ASB will be reasonable, justified, and proportionate and appropriate”. It states it will only take legal action “as a last resort” and “will work with all partner agencies first, to the full extent”.
  10. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s representative’s reports of antisocial behaviour. The landlord acted in line with its ASB policy and took appropriate action in partnership with other agencies.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s representative’s complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states there are 2 internal stages to its complaints process. The policy states the landlord will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The representative raised his complaint on 26 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged receipt of his complaint on 31 May 2023 which was within 5 working days. This was in line with its complaints policy and the Code.
  3. The response the landlord sent to the representative on 15 June 2023 should have been the landlord’s stage 1 response. However, it lacked key information as outlined in the Code. The response did not include the complaint stage and did not include the complaint definition. This response also did not contain details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2 if the representative was not satisfied. As the landlord did not correctly issue a stage 1 response, the representative was delayed in being able to progress his complaint through the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, he was also delayed in being able to bring his complaint to this Service.
  4. This Service contacted the landlord and requested it investigated the representative’s complaint under the landlord’s complaints procedure. We asked the landlord to provide a response to the representative by 7 July 2023. This Service advised the landlord what information needed to be in the response and stated “If you have already responded fully to the resident’s complaint, please provide a copy of this response to the resident and this Service. If any of the information above is missing from your response, please contact the resident and this Service to provide this information”.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 July 2023. This response also did not contain the complaint stage despite the instructions given from this Service when it requested the response be issued. The representative escalated his complaint on 25 July 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 August 2023. This was appropriate as it was within 20 working days which was in line with the landlord’s policy and the Code.
  6. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because the landlord did not initially correctly issue a stage 1 response in line with the Code. This caused delays for the representative to be able to progress his complaint through the landlord’s complaints procedure and to bring his complaint to this Service. To reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failures, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to award £50 compensation to the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance when there has been a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge it and/or fully put it right.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £50 in respect of its handling of the resident’s representative’s complaint. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to her rent account. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with this order within 4 weeks of the date of this report by submitting a copy of the remittance advice, or equivalent document, to this Service.