Incommunities Limited (202315840)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202315840
Incommunities Limited
18 February 2025
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 reports of antisocial behaviour at or near the property.
- The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
- The resident no longer lives at the landlord’s property, a 1-bedroom bungalow but was an assured tenant from June 2022. The landlord did not record any vulnerabilities for the resident but, during the complaint she reported that her situation was affecting her mental health. The landlord has since recorded that she suffers from anxiety. The resident uses a care support worker and is represented in this complaint by her son.
- In or around October 2022 the resident raised reports about antisocial behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour. Counter-allegations were made that the resident was causing a nuisance and annoyance to neighbours. On 20 February 2023 the landlord issued her with a tenancy warning, saying she had breached her tenancy agreement by refusing to move a wheelie bin from a communal area. The landlord hand-delivered the notice on 3 March 2023.
- On 20 March 2023 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She complained about the landlord’s housing officer’s approach, including visiting without notice. She said she felt discriminated against and her mental health was suffering. She asked for a new housing officer. The landlord said it did not see this communication until 28 March 2023. In the meantime, her son called to complain on her behalf on 24 March 2023. He said the landlord had failed to follow its policy before issuing a warning and had not properly considered the issue with the wheelie bin. The landlord responded on 26 April 2023 at stage 1 of its complaint’s process to that later complaint.
- In its response, it said it would not visit the resident without notice in future. However, it said that she had placed a wheelie bin on land that her neighbours used, which it would not tolerate. It said she must stop, or it would take further action. It said that she must use its mediation service before it would escalate any more of her ASB complaints. However, it said she could escalate this complaint to stage 2 if she wished.
- The resident escalated her complaint on 5 May 2023. She said she was confused by the landlord’s response as she had already, upon being asked, moved the wheelie bin. She also felt it was unfair that she was asked to move her wheelie bin but other residents were not.
- The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 22 June 2023. It apologised for failing to respond to the resident’s 20 March 2023 complaint, explaining it had instead responded to her son’s 24 March 2023 contact. It offered her £50 to acknowledge this failing. Answering the points she had made in her 20 March 2023 complaint; it apologised if difficult conversations with her housing officer had caused upset. It said it could not replace her housing officer but could ask for another officer to accompany her on visits and give notice before visits occurred. It explained why other residents had not been asked to move their bins from communal areas and addressed her other concerns.
- The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation.
Assessment and findings
The scope of the investigation
- Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
On the landlord’s response to reports of antisocial behaviour
- The landlord’s antisocial behaviour and hate incident policy (the policy) says that it will take “a balanced approach to ASB and hate incidents combining support and assistance to tackle the causes of ASB and hate incidents with swift and proportionate enforcement where necessary and where behaviour does not improve.” It says it will use “enforcement tools,” taking action where required, adopting a proportionate, “staged response aligning the action taken with the seriousness of the behaviour.” Referring to its “balanced approach,” it comments that “enforcement action in isolation risks displacement rather than resolution of ASB and Hate Incidents.”
- The policy says that, where a tenant is responsible for ASB, they must comply with the tenancy agreement and enter into a “genuine commitment to change their behaviour.” It says the landlord can “incentivise them by providing an alternative of enforcement action.” It will seek to resolve problems at an early stage by the provision of a mediation service. When it takes enforcement action against vulnerable individuals, it will also offer access to support programmes.
- The records show that the resident had made a prior complaint about her neighbour attempting to access the property through the rear gate and made allegations that her neighbours were looking through her window.
- On 20 February 2023 the landlord interviewed the resident over the phone. It offered support in line with its policy and asked if she would like to have a conference call with her support worker.
- The landlord recorded that it informed the resident that the police had reviewed her footage of her neighbours’ behaviour and did not consider it to be evidence of ASB. It noted that she said she would not move her wheelie bin from the boundary gate of a neighbour’s house because her neighbour could use other access points. It said it told her it would issue a tenancy warning as she was committing ASB by placing a bin next to an access gate, blocking the path. It said this was interfering with someone living in their home. The landlord recorded that the resident said she would not accept the warning and after further conversation hung up.
- The landlord issued a tenancy warning the same day, citing a breach of a number of specific clauses in the resident’s tenancy agreement. These included being responsible for the behaviour of anyone who visits her home, not interfering with the right of someone else to live in their home, not inciting or condoning anything that amounts to harassment of her neighbours and not doing anything on the property or locality that could annoy or disturb anyone.
- It is not clear how the resident’s behaviour demonstrated a failure to be responsible for the behaviour of people who visited their home or the right of someone else to live in their home. This was not made clear in the tenancy warning that was sent.
- However, the resident’s actions in placing a wheelie bin outside an access gate, could be viewed as a breach of the resident’s tenancy agreement. The landlord had asked her to move the bin and she had refused. Therefore, enforcement action was reasonable in the circumstances. However, the landlord’s policy says that warnings will be specific about what behaviour has caused the issue. The reference to the other clauses in the warning, with no explanation as to why they might be appropriate, was a communication error that made the landlord’s response seem disproportionate.
- Further, the policy says that it will use enforcement tools incrementally, with the order being: informal/formal intervention, then mediation, followed by a warning and so on. In this case, we have not seen evidence that the landlord offered the resident mediation prior to issuing a warning.
- The landlord’s policy says it will use mediation, where appropriate, “at an early stage” to resolve problems before conflict develops. It must have considered mediation to be an appropriate tool in this case as it later insisted the resident engage in it. However, contrary to the order in which its policy says it will act, it served a warning letter on the resident, which said she could be at risk of losing her tenancy, before offering mediation.
- On 3 March 2023 the landlord’s housing officer hand-delivered the tenancy warning. The resident later complained about this visit but it is clear from the records that the resident invited the housing officer in, who then viewed more video footage. The resident also reported further noise from her neighbour at this meeting and the records indicate that the landlord, appropriately, followed up those noise reports.
- When the landlord first responded to the resident’s complaint, it did so with the understanding that her complaint was one made by her son on 24 March 2023. It had not, it says, seen her earlier complaint of 20 March 2023. Therefore, it failed to answer the points she had made. This was unfortunate. It had not seen that the resident had said she had moved the wheelie bin. Given this, it again warned her of the possibility of further action against her for not moving the bin. It also insisted that she engage in mediation and said that unless she did, it would not escalate her ASB complaints or register any new complaints.
- The landlord’s policy says it will provide mediation for residents “who are willing” to engage with that process. It does not say it will demand residents engage in the process and warn them that if they do not, it will refuse to look at their ASB complaints. This was heavy-handed and contrary to its policy, it also failed to take a balanced approach, by offering support alongside the action taken.
- The resident, upset by this response, escalated her complaint and the landlord then realised its mistake. She said the situation had affected her mental health and that the way the landlord had approached her complaint made her feel “totally unsupported.”
- The landlord responded at stage 2 of its process and this time its response was appropriate. It apologised for failing to acknowledge her initial complaint. It addressed the issues she had raised. The resident had also said it was unfair that other residents left their bins out. It explained this was because some residents had historically done so. The landlord had decided in a review of communal spaces that these residents could therefore continue to do so but newer residents could not do so. It referred to other actions it had taken to respond to the resident’s concerns, such as removing a bolt lock from a gate to make access easier for her. It said if she was still struggling with opening the gate she should let it know. In relation to her request to change her housing officer, it said it could not do this but would arrange for another officer to accompany her housing officer on visits. In this final response, rather than demand she engage in mediation to improve relationships with her neighbours, it offered her the opportunity to do so. It also acknowledged the impact the resident said the situation had been having on her mental health.
- Where there had been a misunderstanding at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints response, at stage 2, it demonstrated an effort at reaching resolution. However, even if it was the result of a misunderstanding, the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s complaint caused her distress. Its initial response had been unnecessarily heavy-handed. While we recognise the landlord offered a sum to address its complaint handling (which we will address below), we consider it would have been reasonable for it to have offered a payment to recognise the full impact of its initial approach on the resident. The compensation policy the landlord has provided does not set out any appropriate range of payments for service failure. However, our guidance on remedies recommends awards from £50 to recognise the impact of minor delays in getting matters resolved. We consider a payment of £100 is an appropriate sum to acknowledge the elements of service failure identified in this case and the impact on the resident.
On the landlord’s complaint handling
- The landlord’s complaints policy, in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints handling code (the Code), says it aims to respond to complaints at stage 1 in 10 working days and at stage 2 in 20 working days.
- As referenced above, the landlord did not initially respond to the resident’s 20 March 2023 complaint. Instead, it responded on 26 April 2023 to a complaint made by the resident’s son on 24 March 2023. This was a response time of 22 working days, 12 working days longer than was appropriate.
- The Code says that, exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to a resident setting out when a response can be expected. It says this should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. In this case, the resident was simply told there would be a delay of 10 working days. She was not given a reason, which was inappropriate.
- At stage 2 of its process, the landlord offered the resident £50 to apologise for having “overlooked” her initial complaint. However, while this was sufficient to remedy the error of responding to the wrong complaint, we do not consider this was a proportionate sum to cover all the complaint handling errors the landlord made. This is because not only did it take 60 working days to answer her original complaint, which was a significant delay, it was also late, as set out above, answering the complaint made on 24 March 2023. It did not acknowledge that delay.
- We consider the landlord’s complaint handling failures caused the resident distress and warrant a finding of service failure. In line with our guidance on remedies we consider a payment of £100 is therefore proportionate in the circumstances.
Determinations
- On consideration of the complaint the Ombudsman has found, in accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme:
- There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour at or near the property.
- There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated formal complaint.
Orders
- The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
- Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
- Pay the resident a total of £200 compensation, comprised of:
- £50 for overlooking her initial complaint, to be paid if not paid already.
- A further payment of £50 to acknowledge the distress caused by the landlord’s handling of the associated formal complaint. This should be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any money the resident may owe the landlord.
- £100 to recognise the distress caused by the landlord’s handling of the reports of antisocial behaviour. This should be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any money the resident may owe the landlord.
36. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders.