Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited (202324785)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324785

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited

8 April 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:
1. the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. the resident’s personal data.
3. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has held an assured tenancy since 2001. The landlord is a housing association. She lives alone in a one-bedroom flat and has health vulnerabilities.
The resident has reported anti-social behaviour for several years. She reported ASB and noise complaints during Autumn 2023 and into early 2024. In February 2024, the resident reported that the problems had got worse since the landlord had spoken to the neighbour.
She submitted a complaint to the landlord on 19 March 2024. She reported ASB and said that she was unhappy with how her complaints had previously been handled. The landlord attempted to clarify the complaint and issues with the resident on 20 March 2024 by phone but was unable to get through. It then visited the neighbour to discuss another report of ASB and marked the case as managed and resolved. It closed the case.
The resident approach this Service and we requested that the landlord sent a stage 1 response. It sent this on 20 June 2024 and said:
1. the resident’s complaint about staff conduct was from 2021 and it was unable to investigate due to being over a 12 month timeframe. It apologised as it could not locate the 2021 complaint response and offered £100 compensation for this.
2. it gave details of reports from the resident. It said it wanted to speak directly to the resident about her reports of ASB and requested a home visit to discuss this and her request to move property. It shared details of home exchange and home choice options.
The resident escalated to stage 2 on 26 June 2024. She said she was not happy with the response because:
1. she disputed that the complaint about information sharing was over 12 months ago and said the impact of this was ongoing.
2. the ASB had gotten worse after she had raised further reports with the landlord in the last 12 months.
3. she had tried to resolve issues herself as she believed information had been previously mismanaged by the landlord.
4. she disputed the landlords dating of communication and that some of her communication had not been acknowledged.
5. the impact on her was significant and that she felt moving was her only option.
During the Internal Complaint Process (ICP) the landlord contacted the resident to discuss steps taken and ASB reports raised. It also asked the resident to make some changes to her property, such as removing a cat ladder.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 24 July 2024. It said:
1. it had investigated the resident’s complaint that information about her had been inappropriately shared within the last 6 months. It did not find evidence that information was being shared and repeated.
2. it would not investigate complaints from over 12 months ago.
3. it detailed actions taken since the stage 1 response and whilst it respected the resident’s preference for written communication repeated its request for in person or telephone contact.
4. it reoffered the £100 for its failure to locate the historic complaint response.
The resident asked this Service to investigate on 29 August 2024. She said she was unhappy because the landlord had not resolved the ASB issues, and she was concerned about the impact of the landlord sharing information about her. She said she was not happy with the complaint process and responses.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot investigate is called our jurisdiction and is set out in the Scheme. Paragraphs 42(f) and (j) of the Scheme note as follows:

“42. The Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

f) concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure;

j) fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.”

The resident has raised concerns the landlord inappropriately shared personal information about her. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 42(f) and (j) of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s information sharing is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has jurisdiction over investigations for complaints relating to data protection obligations. The resident may be able to refer this complaint to the ICO. Additionally, the Ombudsman cannot make a finding of legal defamation, which is more appropriate for the courts. The resident has the option to seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue this concern.

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

The resident raised issues that occurred in 2021 and has continued to report ASB to the landlord after the landlord’s stage 2 response. The landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to a complaint about its handling of these reports. This investigation will focus on the incidents that occurred from 19 March 2023 (12 months prior to the resident’s complaint) to the 24 July 2024 (the date of landlord’s stage 2 response).
The resident said the issues in her property have had a significant impact on her physical and mental well-being. When there is an injury or a pre-existing medical condition that has been exacerbated, the courts often have the benefit of a medical report. This will usually set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial.
In this case, it is not within this service’s role to determine whether the ASB or landlord’s handling of this impacted the resident’s health. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court as a personal injury claim. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports.

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

The ASB, Crime and Policing Act (2014) defines ASB as:
1. ‘Conduct that has caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
2. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises or
3. Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.’
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) is available on our website. This further highlights the need for effective record keeping with recommendations which include:
1. a minimum standard for key data recording, to ensure quality records are available to support the wider business processes.
2. ensuring that the landlord can easily interrogate databases, and that data can be extracted when needed.
It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. It ensures residents receive accurate information. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, it also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident said the incidents she reported caused her significant distress and anxiety. However, it is important to note it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether anti-social behaviour (ASB) occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it has received and whether it had followed proper procedure and followed good practice, taking account of the circumstances of the case.
The landlords ASB policy sets out its approach to preventing and tackling ASB. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord deals with reports of noise nuisance through its ASB policy. It has separate policies for risk assessment, dealing with violence and aggression and hate crime. It also has an ASB procedure. These documents should be read in conjunction with each other.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that hate crime is ASB that targets someone, and the criminal offence is perceived, whether it by victim or any other person to have been motivated because of hostility or prejudice towards a person’s personal characteristics (including race). The landlord says that it will treat hate incidents and crime as high risk and high priority and will always be reviewed by specialist community safety officers.
The landlord’s ASB procedure gives 6 stages it will follow when an ASB report is made. It notes that in some cases, it may discuss the report with the resident and give alternative options, for example advising the resident to deal with the issue themselves for low level reports or to contact another agency.
In all other cases, the ASB report should be logged on its system and given one of the following categories:
1. Category A for the most serious cases of ASB/criminal behaviour including hate incidents/crime and intimidating behaviour.
2. Category B for standard ASB cases including noise nuisance and neighbour disputes.
3. Category C for minor ASB cases including one off noise nuisance incidents or neighbour disputes.

For category A reports, the landlord will contact the resident within 1 working day. For category B and C, it will contact within 5 working days. The categorisation can change during investigation.

At stage 1 of the ASB procedure, a case manager will be assigned, and the resident will be given a case number. The landlord may interview the resident in person or over the phone or correspond in writing. The landlord will then:
1. take full details of issues raised.
2. ask if other agencies have been notified.
3. take details of witnesses.
4. complete a vulnerability risk assessment with resident.
5. discuss what outcomes the resident would like and outline the next steps can be taken to try to resolve the issue.
The resident reported noise complaints on the 10 October 2023. The landlord responded to the resident on 13 October 2023 and asked her for security details to raise and refer the report. The Ombudsman cannot see that the resident responded with this information.
However, the resident continued to report noise complaints of banging, shouting, swearing and loud music to the landlord throughout October. She also requested that the landlord sent out a generic noise letter. On the 31 October 2023 she reported damage to her car and that her neighbour had used racialised language. She made 2 ASB reports in December 2023 and said she was concerned how this would escalate.
The landlord did not follow its ASB policy and procedure by categorising these reports. It did not provide the resident with alternative options or start stage 1 of the ASB procedure. This was not reasonable and was a failing.
The landlord did not follow its ASB policy and investigate whether the report of racialised language used was a hate crime incident. It did not mark this as high risk or high priority, and the incident was not reviewed by its specialist community safety officers. This was not reasonable and was a failing.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s reports but did not act in 2023. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord stated that it tried to phone the resident on 9 January and may have attempted a home visit on 10 January 2024. It did not provide contemporary records of this (for example, a call log or case note). This was a record keeping failure.
The landlord did not follow the first stage of its ASB procedure and did not complete a vulnerability risk assessment with the resident. It would have also been good practice to consider offering a sound recording option for the resident or liaised with appropriate departments to investigate the noise issues complained about. This was not reasonable and was a failure.
On 9 January 2024, the landlord noted that the report of ASB required investigation. The resident reported ASB once more in January 2024. On 13 February 2024, she told the landlord that the problems had got worse since it had spoken to the neighbour. She reported more noise complaints and said she thought it was worse because she lived alone. The landlord has not reported that it spoke to the neighbour in this time. This is poor record keeping.
On 19 March 2024, the resident complained through the landlord’s online complaint form. She said that the problems had been ongoing for several years. She said she had been trying to resolve issues herself as she was not happy with how the landlord had previously handled her report. She reported threatening behaviour along with the same issues previously reported.
The landlord attempted to call the resident on 20 March 2024 to clarify her report. On 23 April 2024, the landlord visited the neighbour to discuss ASB reports. It reported that the neighbour was compliant, and it was able to resolve the issues. It marked the case as managed and closed.
The landlords ASB procedure stated that residents could choose a communication preference. The resident wanted to communicate in writing. The landlord requested on several occasions to communicate via phone or person as it said this would make the process easier.
However, between the residents first report in October 2023 and the stage 1 acknowledgement in June 2024, the landlord did not attempt to investigate the residents reports of ASB through written communication. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to initially offer the residents preferred method of communication. If this was not sufficient, the landlord could have then requested in person/over the phone communication. This was not in line with its ASB policy and was a failing.
After a request from this Service, the landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident. The landlord detailed some ASB reports made by the resident but not all. It also said that it had attempted to contact the resident by phone and in person after March 2024. The landlord did not provide evidence of these contact attempts. This was a record keeping failure.
In summary, the landlord did not follow its ASB policy and procedure in its handling of the residents ASB reports. It also demonstrated poor record keeping at various points.
The Ombudsman considers this did amount to maladministration.
The landlord did attempt to engage the resident, although it did not use her preferred method of communication. As recognised in the landlord’s updated policy, good management of ASB reports can benefit from in person, or telephone communication.
The resident has explained the distress she experienced due to the lack of requested communication about and acceptance of her ASB reports. She said that the landlord’s failure to follow its procedures has made her very anxious. She has stated that the landlord/tenant relationship is damaged and that she struggles to trust the landlord. She said the situation has had a considerable impact on her and caused her significant distress.
In its complaint responses, the landlord did not recognise or apologise for the failings listed above. It noted that during the complaint process, it had tried to engage the resident and that this offer remained open.
Outside of the ICP, in a further review provided to this Service, the landlord has stated it had continued to try to engage the resident, including offering her the opportunity to complete a risk assessment and follow the first stage of its ASB procedure. It stated it has made the following improvements following review of this case:
1. record keeping improvements to storage of tenancy agreements.
2. record keeping improvements to the handling of tasks relating to resident’s reports.
3. amending the ASB policy to clarify when it made need to speak in person or over the phone with residents.
However, having considered the landlords compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. We order the landlord to pay £400 for distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord updated its complaints policy on 1 April 2024. This policy is compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code). Prior to this, the landlord differentiated between:
1. A formal complaint, when someone told the landlord they were unhappy with service and asked for concerns to be dealt with as a formal complaint and wanted the landlord to take further action.

And a

Customer concern, when someone told the landlord they were unhappy with service received but did not want to progress issue as a formal complaint and did not expect further action to be taken or more effective resolution to be found immediately. The landlord said it would still record concerns so that it could put things right and learn from these.

That it did not open a complaint investigation when the resident first raised dissatisfaction in October 2023, nor when she submitted a formal complaint form in March 2024 is evidence the landlord operated an unfair and hard to access complaints process. This inconvenienced the resident, and she was cost further time and trouble in needing to seek assistance from this Service to get the landlord to open a stage 1 complaint, on 7 June 2024.
The landlord did not formally acknowledge the resident’s complaint until 11 June 2024. This was a failing in its complaint handling. The landlord’s policies stated that complaints would be acknowledged within 5 working days, with the landlord setting out its understanding of what the complaint is about. That the landlord did not do so means the resident missed an opportunity to ensure it had the correct understanding of her complaint, and was left not knowing when, or if, it would respond to her complaint.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was sent 175 working days after the resident first expressed dissatisfaction and 64 working days after her formal complaint. This was outside of the timeframes set out in both complaint policies, and the Code. That the landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its complaint response was inappropriate.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and offer £100 for its recording keeping of historic complaints, it did not recognise the delays and failures identified above.
The Ombudsman considers this amounted to maladministration. We order that the landlord pay an additional £150 for complaint handling failures in 2023 and 2024.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42 (f) and (j), the Ombudsman has not investigated the reports of inappropriate information sharing. This is because they concern matters that fall within the jurisdiction of another body.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report. A copy of the letter should be provided to this Service.
Within 28 days of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £650 compensation, comprised of:
1. £400 for failures in its handling the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. £250 for complaint handling failures. £100 can be deducted from this amount, if the landlord has already paid the compensation already offered for historic complaints handling failures.

The landlord is to provide documentary evidence of compliance to this service within 28 days.