Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association Limited (202228816)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228816

Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association Limited

25 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.

1. The complaint is about;
   1. The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. The landlord’s record keeping.
   3. The associated complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord has advised this Service that the resident has no recorded vulnerabilities. However, she has previously advised the landlord that she has an undisclosed disability.
3. Between 9-22 April 2022, the resident reportedly made numerous reports to the landlord about her neighbour and their children kicking a ball against her property. She also advised that when balls were kicked into her garden, her neighbour would harass her to return them and on occasion became threatening towards her. Following an incident where the neighbour verbally abused the resident, the police attended but no formal action was taken. The resident told this Service that she requested that the landlord undertake a risk assessment, victim impact assessment, and conduct an action plan about how it was going to protect her. The resident stated that the landlord failed to do this.
4. Following further reports of alleged ASB, the resident advised that the landlord opened an ASB case on 5 May 2022. However, the resident reportedly informed the landlord on 23 July 2022 that the neighbour had threatened her with violence. She states she made a further report on 24 July 2022 that the neighbour had tried to attack her, made racist comments and threatened her with a knife. The resident has advised that this resulted in police involvement.
5. On 31 July 2022, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord, albeit a copy has not been provided to this Service. However, the complaint reportedly centred around the landlord’s lack of action regarding her reports of ASB over a long period of time.
6. Between August and September 2022, the resident made several reports to the landlord about the neighbour kicking a ball against her property as well as harassment by ringing her doorbell. In January 2023, the resident reported further ASB, and a new case was opened. On 22 February 2023, the landlord advised that the neighbour had committed to not contacting the resident. It also said that it had requested police disclosure regarding recent incidents to determine if it was able to take any enforcement action. Between March and April 2023, the resident reported further incidents of ASB, namely social media harassment and the neighbour being verbally abusive towards the resident.
7. On 24 May 2023, the landlord issued its stage two response. It apologised for the delayed response and advised it had escalated the complaint to stage two because of the delay. It acknowledged that it had received the resident’s reports of ASB but said that the resident had refused to engage with the housing team on multiple occasions, which impeded due process. The landlord also said that it had reviewed police disclosure, but there was not enough evidence to take any enforcement action. The landlord explained that it would continue to investigate all reports of ASB and requested that the resident engage with the investigating officers.
8. Following concerns raised by the resident, the landlord issued an additional stage two response on 9 June 2023. After conducting a review, the landlord recognised that it had not completed a risk assessment with the resident, nor had it communicated with the resident well enough. It acknowledged that it should have communicated with the resident in writing, as she had requested. The landlord apologised to the resident for the failures.
9. The resident remains dissatisfied because ASB has been an ongoing issue for several years and she feels that the landlord ignores her reports. The landlord also failed to respond to her complaint for a significant amount of time.

Assessment and findings

Scope

10. The resident has reported that ASB has been a longstanding issue. Paragraph 42c of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which (in the Ombudsman’s opinion) were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
11. In this case, the resident raised concerns about ASB from 2013-2021. However, the resident raised her complaint on 31 July 2022. Whilst the historical incidents can be referenced to provide contextual background to the current complaint, this investigation will not seek to examine matters dating back from 2013 to 2021. This investigation will therefore focus on the landlord’s actions from around April 2022 (the resident’s first reports of ASB in 2022) until its final response on 9 June 2023.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

12. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will act promptly when dealing with reports of ASB. The policy outlines that examples of ASB may include intimidation and harassment, aggressive and threatening behaviour towards another person, and actual violence. It also provides examples of issues that the landlord would not consider to be ASB, which includes noise from children playing and ball games.
13. The policy says that the landlord has clear service standards for responding to ASB, and outlines the following commitments when dealing with ASB;
    1. The landlord will respond to reports of ASB within clear timescales based on the severity of the reported ASB. The landlord will respond within 1 working day for high-risk ASB and 5 working days for low-risk ASB.
    2. The landlord will agree and record an action plan for dealing with ASB.
    3. Updates will be provided to the complainants at least once a month.
    4. Risk assessments will be completed for all complainants, regardless of the severity of the reported ASB. This is to ensure that vulnerable residents receive support from both the landlord and external support providers if required.
    5. The landlord will contact complainants when it closes an ASB case, providing clear reasons for its decision.
14. This Service did not receive any evidence from the landlord of the resident reporting ASB between April and July 2022. However, the resident provided a chronology that she had devised that referred to reports made to the landlord, which included references to police attendance following incidents. It is difficult for this Service to properly investigate the landlord’s response in that timeframe given the lack of definitive evidence or correspondence between the resident and landlord. In the absence of information from the landlord, we can give more credence to the evidence shared by the resident.
15. That being said, this Service has identified issues with the landlord’s record keeping between July 2022 and April 2023 as the landlord does not appear to operate a system dedicated to ASB cases. It appears that the landlord relies upon email correspondence between resident’s and landlord staff. The staff member that the resident had reportedly been emailing regarding ASB is no longer employed by the landlord. Given the lack of records between April and July 2022, it is reasonable to infer that this may be due to the emails no longer being available.
16. Between August 2022 and October 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that the neighbour was harassing her by persistently ringing her doorbell. Given the historic issues, it is reasonable that the reports could be construed as intimidating and harassing, therefore it was the landlord’s responsibility to devise an action plan for dealing with the ASB. There is no evidence that the landlord did this, and the correspondence reviewed by this Service between the landlord and the resident regarding the reports is very limited. The landlord made reference to discussing the reports with the neighbour, but there is no further evidence to corroborate the landlord’s contact with the resident’s neighbour.
17. The landlord had asked to meet with the resident in October 2022. While the resident refused to meet with her tenancy officer, she said she would meet with another staff member to discuss the ongoing issues. There is no evidence of the landlord attempting to facilitate the resident’s request, nor is there any evidence of the landlord responding to the resident’s request to meet with another staff member which is unreasonable.
18. Following opening an ASB case on 30 January 2023, the landlord provided an update to the resident on 22 February 2023 which was appropriate and in accordance with the landlord’s policy that says it would update resident’s on a monthly basis. However, there is no evidence of the landlord responding to the resident’s reports between 19 March and 7 April 2023 which was unreasonable and caused frustration to the resident.
19. The landlord acknowledged in its stage two response that it had failed to complete a risk assessment with the resident, which it apologised for. However, it failed to acknowledge that it had not responded to all of the resident’s reports, it had not completed an action plan, it had not consistently updated the resident, nor had it informed the resident about why it had closed the ASB case.
20. The landlord took some positive steps in managing the case by obtaining police disclosure to consider whether there was enough evidence to take further action. Nevertheless, the landlord failed to follow its own ASB procedure by not completing a risk assessment. In not doing so it failed to consider the impact the situation had on the resident’s wellbeing. This Service recognises that the landlord apologised for this. However, it also failed to manage the case in line with its ASB policy, including regular clear communication about the status of the case. It is concerning that the landlord failed to complete an action plan, as per its policy. The resident received a poor service from the landlord which did not follow its own policy, and which failed to effectively manage the resident’s expectations. 
21. Subsequently, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and the landlord will be ordered to appropriately compensate the resident for the identified failures.

Record Keeping

22. Throughout the landlord’s ASB investigation its record keeping was poor, which has negatively impacted the Ombudsman’s ability to assess whether its response to the resident’s reports of ASB were appropriate. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of ASB reports, responses, and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. 
23. Whilst the landlord has provided copies of the emails to and from the resident, there is reference made to phone calls. However, this Service has not seen call logs to further evidence discussions that landlord staff had with the resident, and the neighbour.
24. The landlord’s complaint responses refer to the resident requesting to liaise exclusively in writing, as well as a written statement provided by the resident. This Service has not seen evidence of the resident’s request or the written statement, which highlights missing evidence for the purpose of this investigation, as well as inadequate record keeping by the landlord. It is of concern that the landlord refers to the resident ‘impeding due process’, despite providing no information to evidence this claim.
25. Landlords need to maintain an audit trail of its actions and the evidence which it is relying on regardless of whether this constituted a “formal” investigation or not. In this case this did not occur which is inappropriate.
26. In reviewing the evidence, it is clear that the landlord’s record-keeping contributed to its poor management of the ASB reports. This caused delays, as well as further distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident, in her pursuit to resolve matters. There was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
27. The Ombudsman has issued guidance about record keeping in May 2023, Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management, which stresses the importance of good record keeping, enabling landlords to provide a better service. Although this Service acknowledges that the Spotlight Report was published after the date of the resident’s complaint, we recommend that the landlord pays close attention to the report and takes steps to implement relevant recommendations to improve its record keeping.

The associated complaint handling.

28. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC) is a guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service it provides to resident’s, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement.
29. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. The landlord ought to provide a stage one response within 10 working days of the complaint being raised, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. These timescales are in accordance with the CHC.
30. While this Service has not had sight of the resident’s actual complaint, we have seen evidence of the resident emailing her complaint to the landlord on 31 July 2022. In accordance with the landlord’s policy and the CHC, the landlord should have issued its stage one response on 12 August 2022.
31. The CHC sets out that landlords must offer formal complaint responses under its complaints process. A stage one response must be issued within 10 working days of the complaint being logged and must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.
32. The code further sets out that landlords must confirm the following in writing to the resident at the completion of stage one in clear, plain language:
    1. the complaint stage.
    2. the complaint definition.
    3. the decision on the complaint.
    4. the reasons for any decisions made.
    5. the details of any remedy offered to put things right.
    6. details of any outstanding actions.
    7. details of how to escalate the matter to stage two if the resident is not satisfied with the answer.
33. The landlord failed to act in accordance with its complaint policy and the CHC as it failed to respond to the complaint via a stage one response. This meant that the resident did not have the reassurance and benefit of response timescales, the opportunity to receive a formal remedy to put things right and an awareness in how to escalate her complaint should she wish to do so. This caused the resident significant frustration and delays in being able to bring her complaint to this Service for an independent investigation.
34. The landlord issued its stage two response on 23 May 2023; 10 months after the resident raised her complaint. This is significantly beyond the timescales outlined within its policy and the CHC. Furthermore, the landlord said it escalated the complaint to stage two because of the delay. This is unreasonable and does not adhere to the CHC, which is clear that landlord’s should offer a two-stage complaints process.
35. The landlord apologised for the delayed response but offered no explanation about why it had failed to respond to the resident for such a protracted period of time. This was unreasonable and the lack of explanation surrounding the delay likely caused the resident a degree of frustration. The landlord should be open and transparent when explaining delays and why they had occurred.
36. The landlord issued an additional stage two response on 9 June 2023. This confused the process and created an additional stage that does not adhere to the CHC, or its complaints policy. The CHC clearly states that a landlords stage two response is the landlord’s final response before a resident is able to bring their complaint to the Ombudsman. Had the landlord issued a stage one response prior to its stage two, it may not have needed to issue a further stage two response.
37. Although the landlord apologised to the resident for the delayed response, this was not sufficient to reflect the impact the delay had on her. The resident felt ignored, which caused her distress, as well as frustration. The landlord failed to follow its complaint procedure, significantly prolonging the complaints process for the resident, and did not offer an appropriate remedy in recognition of its failures. Overall, there were significant failings in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint and as such, this Service has concluded that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter.

Determination

38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of;
    1. The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. The landlord’s record keeping.
    3. The associated complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

39. The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £450 compensation, consisting of:
    1. £350 for distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the residents reports of ASB. This includes distress caused by its record keeping failures which contributed to the detrimental effect on the level of service provided to the resident.
    2. An additional £100 to appropriately remedy the identified failures in the associated complaint handling.
40. Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be sent to this Service within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

41. The landlord should review its record keeping processes against the recommendations in the Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report (available on the Ombudsman’s website).