Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202100259)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100259

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

29 February 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 anti-social behaviour.

Background

The resident lives in a two bedroom flat, located on the second floor of the block. The block contains seven flats and was built in 1994.
The resident is a tenant of the landlord, and the tenancy began on 5 August 2002.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process. Section 5.2 of the landlord’s complaint policy states at stage one the full response will be issued within ten working days. If needed, it may extend this by an additional ten working days but will notify the resident.
Section 5.3 of the landlord’s complaint policy states stage two is a review of the stage one complaint and not a new investigation. It is reviewed by a director into how the complaint was handled at stage one. The resident would need to inform the landlord why they are not satisfied with the stage one response and what outcomes are wanted from the stage two review.
If the landlord declines the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage two, it will provide the resident with the reasons why, and inform the resident of rights to contact the Ombudsman. If the request for a stage two review contains new information, it will be considered to be a new stage one complaint. The full stage two response will be issued within 20 working days. If needed, it may extend this by ten working days, and will notify the resident and explain the reasons why.
Section one of the landlord’s anti social behaviour policy states:
1. Any actions should be agreed with the victim and they should be updated regularly on the case.
2. Whether it is nuisance diaries, witness statements or general correspondence, any evidence compiled or actions taken should be recorded with date, time and any other relevant facts. Evidence should always be uploaded for ease of use and accessibility.
3. There are agencies that can assist with supporting victims, achieving resolutions or helping enforcement. The landlord is to consider a wide variety of appropriate agencies and forums when logging cases.
4. It does not necessarily have to take place on its property but must happen in a way that directly affects a resident’s use or enjoyment of their home
5. Harassment cases are to be dealt with as a high priority within the anti social behaviour procedure.
6. Its approach to all anti social behaviour is victim centred and harassment cases are no different. The victim should be actively involved in decision making and updated regularly. There are specialist support agencies and groups that should be considered for the victims of harassment.
Section four of the landlord’s anti social behaviour policy states when a report of anti social behaviour is received, the landlord will gather as much initial detail as possible and determine if the incidents are considered to be anti social behaviour. If it is considered to be anti social behaviour, a risk rating will be applied from the following categories:
1. Category 3 – Minor neighbour disputes, minor breaches of tenancy and some noise nuisance are classed as low risk cases with a response time of 5 to 10 working days.
2. Category 2 – Allegations of criminal activity, drug dealing, verbal abuse, youth nuisance and consistent/repetitive noise nuisance are classed as medium risk cases with a response time of 2 to 5 working days.
3. Category 1 – Threats of physical assault, serious intimidation or harassment, racial incidents, domestic violence and serious damage to the landlord’s property are classed as high risk cases with a response time of 24 hours to one working day.
Section two of the landlord’s anti social behaviour policy states the landlord defines harassment as having happened if anyone believes it has occurred. So, if the victim, a witness or a third party (such as a support agency) informs it that an incident is harassment it must investigate on that basis. It does not necessarily have to take place on its property but must happen in a way that directly affects a resident’s use or enjoyment of their home.
Section five of the landlord’s anti social behaviour policy states gathering of evidence should be an integral part of an action plan. Key methods include:
1. Interviews
2. Witness statements
3. Contacting neighbours
4. Contacting neighbouring landlords
5. Nuisance diaries
6. CCTV
7. Noise recording
8. External agencies
Section five of the anti social behaviour policy also states that if it is apparent anti social behaviour is taking place, the landlord can take actions including referrals to support services, formal warnings, mediation, acceptable behaviour agreements and termination of a starter tenancy. If the anti social behaviour is of a serious nature or persists in spite of action already being taken the landlord can pursue injunctions and possession proceedings.

Summary of events

On 10 February 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and reported that while taking her son to the bus, she was verbally abused by a tenant of the landlord. The resident stated the tenant made verbal threats including “wait until I get you” and “you are not going to win”. The resident said she was being targeted by the tenant without impunity and asked for it to be addressed by the landlord. The resident stated she would not be making a report to the police as she did not feel it was a police matter on that occasion.
The landlord responded the same day and informed the resident she should make a report to the police as verbal threats, intimidation and harassment were police matters. The landlord stated her report would be passed to an anti social behaviour officer.
On 13 May 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and informed it she had continued to be verbally assaulted by the tenant of the landlord. The resident stated the incident occurred in a local shop and was witnessed by other people in the shop. The resident stated she felt the tenant was intimidating, offensive and a bully. The resident also said she took every effort to avoid the tenant but at every opportunity the tenant harassed and abused her. The resident asked for the landlord to assist her and said that she had been subjected to two years of victimisation and harassment at the hands of the tenant. The resident asked the landlord to provide her with impartial guidance and advice on how she was to live with the constant abuse, stating it was bullying and harassment and she was requesting assistance.
The landlord responded on 25 May 2022 and asked if the resident could confirm if she had reported the incident to the police and, if so, if a crime reference number could be provided. The landlord stated in the meantime it would investigate the report of harassment.
On 14 June 2022 the resident made a further report to the landlord of aggressive and intimidating behaviour from the landlord’s tenant. The resident stated the tenant had waited for her to leave her property, followed her to a local shop, verbally abused her and made threats of violence. The resident stated she was scared to leave the shop and the shop keeper phoned the police. The resident provided the crime reference number to the landlord.
The resident stated she had been told to stay away from the tenant which she tried to do but the tenant was seeking her out and had stated to the resident earlier in the day she was “coming for her”. The resident said she had suffered at the hands of the tenant for two years and did not feel safe in her property or local area. The resident asked for this report to also be considered a formal complaint.
The landlord’s records show an anti social behaviour case was opened on 15 June 2022. The case was assessed by the landlord as medium risk.
The case file noted that on 20 June 2022 the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her report. The case file notes stated the landlord had outlined action points with the resident, would request a police disclosure, discuss the reports with the perpetrator and update the resident.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 27 June 2022. In the response, the landlord stated:
1. The incident reported by the resident on 10 February 2022 resulted in a written warning being issued to it’s tenant on 21 February 2022.
2. Following the incident reported on 13 May 2022, the landlord requested a police crime reference number from the resident on 25 May 2022.
3. The incident reported on 14 June 2022 had been reported to the police and a crime reference number had been provided to the landlord.
4. After reviewing the background of the resident’s complaint, it found it had not followed its anti social behavioural procedure correctly and apologised that it led to the resident feeling it was not treating her fairly.
5. The initial report was logged and proportionate action had been taken but it should have notified the resident a written warning had been issued.
6. It had followed up the resident’s second report but did not log it. A new case should have been opened and an action plan agreed with the resident.
7. The incident reported on 14 June 2022 had been logged and an action plan had been agreed.
8. It was reviewing the way it delivered its anti social behavioural service and the learning points from the complaint would be used as part of the discussions.
On 5 July 2022 the resident informed the landlord she was dissatisfied with the stage one response. The resident stated the investigation:
1. Covered events from February 2022 but did not consider reports made in April 2021, May 2021, June 2021 and August 2021.
2. Failed to identify how failings from the landlord to follow the anti social behaviour procedure led to the incidents escalating to the level where she was racially abused.
3. Failed to highlight the duration her reports had been mismanaged or not managed and the impact that had.
4. Failed to detail if that was a widespread issue with the landlord or the failing was only with her anti social behaviour reports.
5. Failed to address the impact or damage the failings had, and continued to have, on her quality of life. The resident requested the landlord be honest and accountable and compensate her for repeated and ongoing failures.
On 13 July 2022 the landlord’s anti social behaviour case notes stated an acknowledgement letter was sent to the resident. This Service has not seen a copy of the letter.
On 18 July 2022 the landlord’s records state it spoke to the perpetrator. The records state the perpetrator was told any further reports of anti social behaviour could put the tenancy at risk and they would be issued with a written warning.
On 3 August 2022 the landlord issued its stage two response. The landlord stated:
1. After looking through the background to the complaint from April 2021, it was clear it had not followed its anti social behaviour procedure correctly.
2. It should have found a way that did not breach data protection to inform the resident that it had followed its policy and taken appropriate action against her neighbour. It was sorry she was not informed.
3. There was an open anti social behaviour case and it had regular contact with the neighbour and it had escalated its approach considering the continued anti social behaviour towards the resident.
4. The neighbour had admitted verbally abusing the resident. It could not breach data protection by going into the specifics but assured the resident it had seen evidence it was following its anti social behaviour policy.
5. It did not consider it gave enough specialist attention to the way it managed anti social behaviour cases and it would be looking at the structure of the team and changing the focus of the resources.
6. It apologised for its failure to keep the resident informed of the actions it was taking and offered £500 compensation for the service failure and the impact it had on the resident.

Post Complaint

The resident was contacted by the landlord on 8 August 2022 and provided with the outcome of its interview with the perpetrator. The records state the resident said no further incidents had occurred.
On 25 August 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and confirmed that there had been no further incidents from the tenant. She said she understood that if any further incidents occurred, the case would be reopened. The landlord issued a case closure letter to the resident the same day for the case opened on 15 June 2022.
On 14 October 2022 the resident informed the landlord that a flammable liquid had been thrown at her property.
On 16 November 2022 the Council set up a meeting in response to a community trigger being activated by the resident.
On 30 November 2022 the resident sent video footage of the neighbour causing noise nuisance when entering and leaving the building.
The landlord informed the resident on 13 December 2022 that the neighbour had been spoken to about their behaviour and would be issued with a written warning if there were any further incidents. The landlord also confirmed it had been invited by the Council to a meeting regarding the community trigger which was to be arranged in January 2023.
On 26 January 2023 the landlord wrote to the council and asked for the meeting notes from the community trigger meeting and asked for a date for it to discuss the action plan for the ongoing complaints. The Council supplied the notes on 31 January 2023.
On 1 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and informed it she feared her neighbour was putting substances in her car to damage it. The resident stated she had witnessed her neighbour returning from her car into the building and had smashed a bottle beside her car leaving glass on the road. The resident also stated she was being watched by the partner of her neighbour through a window menacingly.
The resident said she had reported this to the landlord in early January 2023 and since her neighbour had identified she had a car, she had to replace the front and back wipers, a tyre and needed to daily top up the air pressure in the tyres which were brand new. The resident said she could not prove any damage was being done by the neighbour but had been informed by her anti social behaviour officer that the landlord worked on probability and she was 100% sure of the probability the damage was caused by the neighbour. The resident asked the landlord if it was waiting for someone to be killed by the tenant’s actions before proper action was taken. The resident said she feared to report incidents anymore as the repercussions from doing so were more severe.
On 11 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and stated she had requested access to the communal car park but had not had a response. That morning she found her car had been vandalised with eggs with the trail of flour resonating from the communal car park. The resident asked why the landlord had failed to stop the neighbours from causing the harassment to her for the past three years.
The landlord responded to the resident on 13 March 2023. The landlord said the resident needed to report the vandalism to her vehicle to the police as the incident took place on a public highway which the landlord did not manage. It said it would liaise with its estates team regarding access to the communal car park.
The landlord stated it had worked hard to resolve the ongoing dispute between the resident and her neighbour over the past few years and had issued warnings on tenancies, injunctions and had a community trigger meeting at the resident’s request. It said it would look into setting up a CCTV camera outside the building which may capture any incidents that happen directly outside.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

It is acknowledged that the evidence provided shows a history of anti social behaviour reports dating over a number of years being made by the resident and there are continuing ongoing reports of anti social behaviour. The resident stated during the complaint process that she had made reports of anti social behaviour to the landlord between April 2021 and August 2021 that were not considered in the landlord’s complaint response.
The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 15 June 2022. The anti social behaviour reports made up to August 2021 were not mentioned as part of the complaint made in June 2022. Under paragraph 42c of the Ombudsman Scheme, these were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. Accordingly, although the historic complaints provide context for this report, the focus of this investigation will be on the landlord’s response to the residents reports made from 10 February 2022 to 14 June 2022.
The resident has continued to make reports of anti social behaviour to the landlord following the stage two response being issued in August 2022. Any current issues of concern need to be raised with the landlord directly. The resident can raise a new complaint with the landlord if she is unhappy with its handling of her reports in the period after that considered in this report. Those issues cannot be assessed as part of this investigation as the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to address them through it’s internal complaints procedure first.
The resident, in her stage two escalation request, asked the landlord if it’s actions had allowed the situation to become worse. This investigation cannot state if the landlords actions contributed to an escalation of anti social behaviour. This investigation will investigate how the landlord handled the reports of anti social behaviour in relation to it’s anti social behaviour policies and procedures.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.

It is this Service’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of anti social behaviour and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for anti social behaviour; our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies and procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s anti social behaviour policy states that once a report of anti social behaviour is made, it is to risk assess the case. In cases assessed as medium or high risk, it is to produce a risk assessment. An action plan should be created and updated during the time the case remains open.
In the period considered in this investigation, the resident made reports of anti social behaviour on 10 February 2022 and 13 May 2022. In both of these cases, there is no evidence provided by the landlord that it opened a formal anti social behaviour case or that it followed its anti social behaviour procedure. There is also no evidence provided that the landlord used any of the evidence gathering processes from section five of its anti social behaviour policy.
This is not disputed by the landlord as in its stage one and stage two complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to follow its anti social behaviour policy correctly for the reports made in February 2022 and May 2022. The landlord stated in the stage one response that when the initial report was made by the resident, it was logged and proportionate action had been taken but it should have notified the resident that a written warning had been issued.
As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. The landlord was only able to provide limited information, which did not include significant information such as details of its actions to the reports of anti social behaviour reported in February 2022 or May 2022. This Service is unable to corroborate the landlord’s statement regarding a warning letter being issued in response to the reports of anti social behaviour made on 10 February 2022 as there was no evidence from the landlord that a case was logged for the anti social behaviour or a copy of the warning letter provided to this Service.
The landlord has acknowledged that the second report made by the resident in May 2022 was not logged or an action plan agreed with the resident.
It is concerning that the landlord confirmed in its complaint responses that it had not followed its anti social behaviour policy correctly. The policy will exist to ensure all residents are treated fairly and the landlord can demonstrate it has taken required actions. Given that it is clear the reports of anti social behaviour have been ongoing for a considerable period of time prior to the period in this investigation, the landlord would be expected to ensure it is following its anti social behaviour procedure and carrying out effective implementation of its policy, with the aim to resolve what has clearly been a long term situation.
The landlord stated the third report made by the resident on 14 June 2022 was logged and an action plan agreed with the resident. This Service has seen evidence that the anti social behaviour report was logged and a case opened. There were also copies of some correspondence on the anti social behaviour case file, however there was no evidence provided of the risk assessment or an action plan. There was also no evidence provided of what remedies were offered to the resident in an attempt to try and resolve the repeated anti social behaviour reports.
Although the stage one complaint response acknowledged there were failings in its handling of the first and second reports made by the resident, the landlord failed to offer any form of redress to the resident or an apology for its handling of the anti social behaviour reports.
The wording of the landlord’s stage one response was concerning. The landlord stated it had failed to correctly follow its anti social behaviour procedure and was sorry it led to the resident feeling she was not being treated fairly. By not following its own procedure correctly the resident had, in fact, not been treated fairly. The landlord should have apologised for its failings and not stated it apologised for the resident feeling that she had not been treated fairly.
In the landlord’s stage two response, it stated that it could not go into specifics due to data protection but assured the resident it had seen evidence it was following its anti social behaviour policy. There would be no reason under data protection for a resident not to be kept informed of her case and what action had been taken by the landlord. It is agreed that the landlord could not disclose specific details of another household but this would not have prevented the landlord disclosing to the resident what steps it had taken or planned to take.
The resident, in her stage two escalation request, asked the landlord if its actions had allowed the situation to become worse. The landlord failed to issue a response to that concern. However, it is clear that the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour had not been handled correctly and the evidence provided from the landlord and resident indicate the anti social behaviour had been continuing and is still currently being reported by the resident.
From the three reports of anti social behaviour considered in this investigation, the landlord has acknowledged that it did not correctly log the anti social behaviour report from 10 February 2022 but stated it issued a warning letter to the perpetrator. It did not log the report of anti social behaviour from 13 May 2022. The landlord has failed to evidence any actions it took for either of these reports. The landlord did create a case following the anti social behaviour report made on 14 June 2022 but it has also failed to evidence it followed its anti social behaviour process as it has not provided evidence of a risk assessment, action plan or all letters issued.
The gaps and omissions in the landlord’s evidence provided to this Service have hampered this Service’s ability to assess the landlord’s rationale behind its decisions and other key elements regarding the resident’s anti social behaviour reports.
The landlord is required to keep adequate records detailing its response and actions to reports of anti social behaviour from a resident. The landlord must consider that failing to follow its process and policies correctly can lead to anti social behaviour escalating and the impact this can have on its residents. An order is made at the end of this report for the landlord to review its processes.
The landlord offered the resident £500 compensation for its failings in it’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour. This is not considered an appropriate amount of compensation given the serious nature of the anti social behaviour reported, the failings were likely to have had a significant impact on the resident and there is little evidence that the landlord offered any support especially during the anti social behaviour reports made in February 2022 and May 2022. A further amount of £100 in addition to the £500 already offered by the landlord should be paid to the resident for the failings by the landlord that adversely affected the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.

Reasons

The landlord has acknowledged it did not log the resident’s reports made in February 2022 or May 2022 correctly and it failed to evidence to the resident the actions it took in response to those reports. The landlord in its complaint response made a general finding and acknowledgement that it did not follow it’s anti social behavioural policy but did not make specific reference to what it’s failings were, so has not demonstrated that it adequately assessed exactly where it went wrong. It did not identify specific lessons it should have learned and provided a generalised response to the resident. The landlord did not identify it’s record-keeping as a problem. The amount of compensation offered was not in line with what this Service would award for the identified failings and it failed to offer any additional support to the resident.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to:
1. Pay the resident £600 including the already offered £500 for its handling of the residents reports of anti social behaviour.
2. Establish if the resident has any current anti social behaviour cases open. If so, it contacts the resident and provides a full update / report to the resident detailing the current status of her case, including an updated action plan detailing what steps are to be taken and the timescales for these steps to be completed.

Recommendations

The landlord reviews this Service’s Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report and assesses itself against it’s record keeping practices.
The landlord reviews it’s anti social behaviour processes and take steps to ensure all action plans, risk assessments, letters issued and any other evidence from it’s investigations are recorded and copies are recorded on the case file.