Hyde Housing Association Limited (202319093)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319093

Hyde Housing Association Limited

4 December 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:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. Associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom first floor flat, owned by the landlord.
3. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 October 2022, stating that he believed his neighbour was dealing and using drugs in the property. He reported further instances of drug use and lack of communication from the landlord about his ASB report multiple times between August 2022 and January 2023.
4. On 10 February 2023, the resident made a formal complaint about the landlord’s lack of communication regarding his ASB reports. The landlord responded the same day stating that it would not consider his complaint under its complaints policy and that it would investigate under its ASB policy.
5. The resident contacted this Service stating that he was unhappy that the landlord did not consider his complaint of 10 February 2023 within its complaint’s procedure. This Service contacted the landlord on 17 October 2023 and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process.
6. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 3 November 2023, stating that it informed the resident when he made the formal complaint in February 2023 that its ASB team was responsible for dealing with neighbour issues. It said it followed its process correctly by not raising a formal complaint when he requested it.
7. The resident was dissatisfied with this response, he said he had been clear in his previous communications with the landlord that his complaint was about the landlord’s level of communication about his ASB reports. He requested for it to escalate his complaint on 4 November 2023.
8. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 14 November 2023. It reiterated its stage 1 response and did not uphold the complaint.
9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Antisocial behaviour

10. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances.
11. The Crime and Policing Act 2014 states that ASB is conduct which:
    1. Has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person.
    2. Can cause nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
    3. Can cause housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
12. The landlord’s ASB procedure states that it would contact the resident within 5 working days of receiving a report. Its ASB policy states that it will confirm the details of the ASB report and any agreed steps in writing. It will agree a preferred method of contact and confirm how often the resident would like it to update them. It would also set a date for the first case review and ensure it regularly updates the resident at the agreed frequency while it is investigating the ASB case.
13. The resident made his initial ASB report to the landlord regarding his neighbour’s drug use on 2 October 2022. He contacted it again on 13 and 24 October 2022, requesting updates about his ASB reports. According to the landlord’s procedure, it should have contacted the resident within 5 working days of him making his report. There is no evidence to show it contacted the resident about his report until 25 October 2022, 23 working days from his initial report. This was not in line with its ASB policy.
14. In its correspondence with the resident on 25 October 2022, the landlord stated that its ASB officer contacted him and discussed his concerns. It stated that the officer would provide further updates directly to him. The landlord’s records do not show any evidence of the content of the discussion with the ASB officer on 25 October 2022. It did not confirm to him in writing the details of the ASB report, any agreed actions, or frequency and method of updating him. This was not in line with its ASB policy.
15. The resident contacted the landlord 6 times between 30 November 2022 and 9 February 2023 requesting updates regarding his report. The landlord did not respond to his requests until 10 February 2023. In its contact with the resident on 10 February 2023, it apologised and said it would contact him on 13 February 2023 to discuss an action plan to deal with his report.
16. The landlord’s correspondence with the resident of 10 February 2023, was 3 months and 16 days after its last contact of 25 October 2022. This was a lengthy period without any communication from the landlord. It is understandable that in some circumstances conducting investigations into ASB reports might be challenging. In such situations it is a reasonable expectation that the landlord would keep the resident updated regarding any challenges or causes of delays it faces when investigating.
17. However, in this case, not only did the resident have to continually chase the landlord for updates regarding his ASB report but there was also a long delay before it finally updated him. This lack of communication would have led the resident to believe it was not taking his ASB reports seriously thereby likely causing him unnecessary distress.
18. The resident made further contacts to the landlord 7 times between 15 February 2023 and 28 May 2023, requesting for an update on his formal complaint and his ASB reports. The landlord responded on 31 May 2023. It stated that it had contacted the alleged perpetrator and made them aware of the allegations. It had also contacted the police to find out if they had received any reports of drug dealing from the address. It said it would update him in a few weeks once it heard back from the police. It asked him to report any further drug dealing to the police and send in the crime reference numbers.
19. It was appropriate of the landlord to take these actions to resolve the resident’s reports of ASB. However, its records shows that it did not contact the police or the alleged perpetrator until May 2023. Considering the resident made his initial report in October 2022, it took the landlord almost 7 months to complete any action regarding the resident’s reports. It should have been more proactive in contacting the police and the alleged perpetrator. It should also have advised the resident from the outset to contact the police as drug dealing is a criminal offence and better investigated by the police. This delay was unreasonable and would have likely caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
20. The resident informed the landlord that its response of 31 May 2023 was inadequate. He asked it to confirm if the alleged drug user still resided at the property. He contacted the landlord again on 13 June 2023, 5 and 25 July 2023 and 25 August 2023. He informed the landlord that he was filing a complaint with this Service regarding its lack of communication and unreasonable delays in keeping him informed.
21. The landlord responded to the resident’s correspondence on 8 September 2023. It informed him that it had evicted the neighbour. It apologised again for the delay in responding to his request for updates and stated that it was completing work around the issues.
22. Throughout this case, the landlord consistently demonstrated poor levels of communication. The resident had to constantly chase it for updates. Its response of 8 September 2023 was 3 months and 8 days from when the resident contacted it on 31 May 2023. In its response it stated that it was completing works, and it evicted the neighbour. This Service acknowledges that it might have been completing some works to evict the neighbour and the process of eviction is not straightforward. Furthermore, there will be considerations of confidentiality as it should not provide some details to the resident. This does not, however, excuse the landlord’s failure to communicate adequately with the resident.
23. The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 response centred around how it adequately managed the resident’s requests to make a formal complaint in February 2023. It did not provide any information regarding how it managed his ASB reports. It failed to recognise the shortcomings of not responding to several communications by the resident, which should have resulted in the offer of redress.
24. In summary, although the landlord eventually evicted the neighbour responsible for the ASB, there were consistently lengthy delays in responding to the resident’s reports and its communication was extremely poor. This Service concludes that the landlord did not act in line with its ASB policy, and a finding of failure is appropriate in this case.

Complaint handling

25. The landlord informed the resident on 10 February 2023 that it would not investigate his reports of drug problems in his neighbour’s home as a formal complaint. It said it had raised the issue with the ASB team who would contact him to discuss his reports. It stated further that if the resident had evidence that there had been poor case handling or lengthy delays in communication then he should let it know and it may consider investigating as a formal complaint.
26. The resident responded to the landlord on the same day. He said it had been over 3 months since he raised the ASB issue, and the landlord had not responded to his report. He said this was an unreasonable delay and he requested for the landlord to treat this lack of response as a formal complaint.
27. The resident contacted the landlord again on 13 and 14 February 2023 asking it to raise a formal complaint. The landlord reiterated its response of 10 February 2023, stating that it would only treat as a complaint if the resident had evidence of poor case handling or lengthy delays in communication.
28. The landlord further confirmed its position in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. It stated that it had investigated the issue of not raising a formal complaint for the resident in February 2023. It said the resident submitted a request online for it to register a formal complaint regarding how it was managing his ASB reports since October 2022. It referred to its previous responses and concluded that it followed its complaint process, and it did not uphold his complaint.
29. The landlord’s complaints policy is clear that it would not consider reports of ASB as a formal complaint. However, it states that it would consider reports of delays and lack of communication around the ASB reports as a formal complaint. It states further that if a resident is unhappy with its service, it would rely on evidence of a delay or poor communication before accepting as a complaint. The resident clarified to the landlord, in his correspondence on 10 February 2023 and on multiple occasions after, that he was complaining about its lack of communication and delays in responding to his ASB reports. The landlord should therefore have raised a formal complaint about this issue and managed it through its complaint process.
30. The landlord’s complaint responses were not appropriate as it did not follow its complaints policy. Its stage 2 response would have been an opportunity for it to reconsider its position in relation to how it managed the residents request to raise a formal complaint. However, it insisted that it had followed its process correctly. This was a missed opportunity where the landlord could have demonstrated learning from its earlier failure to register the resident’s formal complaint.
31. Furthermore, paragraph 1.5 of this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that a complaint must be raised when the resident expresses dissatisfaction with the response to their service request, even if the handling of the service request remains ongoing.
32. In summary, there were failings by the landlord with regards to refusing to raise a formal complaint in February 2023 when the resident had clearly indicated that his reason for the complaint was the service it provided.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Orders

34. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Send a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £300 broken down as follows:
       1. £150 for its delays and communication failures in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
       2. £150 for its complaint handling failures.
35. The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

36. It is recommended that the landlord should ensure that its staff are appropriately trained and recognise when a resident is dissatisfied with its service and to raise a complaint accordingly.