Islington Council (202201138)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201138

Islington Council

28 June 2023

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:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Complaint handling.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord in a one bedroom flat on the ground floor, and the landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. Evidence seen as part of this investigation indicates that the resident considers herself to have a disability, due to physical and mental health problems.
The alleged perpetrator of ASB against the resident was her neighbour, for clarity this report will refer to him as Mr A.
Throughout her complaint, the resident had a representative that often communicated with the landlord on her behalf. For clarity, this report will refer to the resident’s representative as “Ms C”.

Scope of investigation

The evidence provided for this investigation shows that the resident reported issues with ASB at her property from Mr A in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020. The reports mostly relate to a concern about alleged threatening and intimidating behaviour by Mr A. The landlord issued Mr A with warning letters about ASB in July 2019, August 2019 and October 2019. The landlord closed its ASB case, relating to the above matters, in November 2019.
The Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. There is no evidence that a complaint was escalated through the landlord’s complaints procedure prior to the complaint which was raised in December 2021.This investigation has focused on the ASB case which was opened in August 2020 and the immediate events leading up to the resident making her stage one complaint on 15 December 2021. This is on the basis of what the Ombudsman considers a reasonable period in light of the provisions of the Scheme and considering the circumstances of the case. Information about earlier reports of ASB have been included in this report for context.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 18 August 2020 and asked for a call back due to her concerns about ASB from Mr A. She contacted the landlord again on 20 August 2020, as she had not received a call back. The notes from the conversation state that she had experienced a threat of violence from Mr A and was “extremely frightened”. It is not clear, from the evidence available, when the landlord called the resident back.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 October 2020 and said that she had experienced further incidents of ASB from Mr A. She said that he had approached her window and was “looking in” while “licking his lips and winking”.
An internal email for the landlord shows that it contacted the resident on 22 January 2021 to discuss her reports of ASB. The email states:
1. Mr A was causing a noise nuisance by playing loud music;
2. Mr A approached the resident and “made comments”, and displayed “general strange behaviour” around her;
3. The resident had said she was afraid Mr A “would do something to her”;
4. The resident had reported Mr A to the police and the landlord “a number of times” and felt nothing was being done;
5. The resident wanted her reports to remain anonymous;
6. The landlord advised that if the resident felt threated by Mr A, she should report him to the police;
7. The resident wanted the landlord to rehouse her or move Mr A, the landlord had told her that this was “unrealistic and mediation [was] more probable”;
The resident reported a further incident of ASB to the landlord on 25 February 2021 and said that she was being harassed by Mr A. She said that she was unhappy with how the landlord was dealing with her case and asked it to take action.
The landlord emailed the police on 12 March 2021 and asked it to check if it had received any reports about incidents of ASB relating to Mr A and if it was taking any action. It asked the police to visit the resident to discuss her concerns about ASB.
On 17 March 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and asked for her case officer to call her back, as she had been told she would be visited or called by the officer. It is not clear what action the landlord took in response.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 April 2021 and told it that she had contacted the police due to “escalated harassment” from Mr A and the police had arrested him. She told the landlord that she had temporarily moved out of her property, due to concerns about her safety. On the same day, Mr A contacted the landlord and made a counter allegation against the resident, and said that he had experienced ASB from her.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 April 2021 and said she wanted a manager to contact her to discuss her case. She said that she had been awaiting information about a home a visit, but the landlord had not contacted her.
Internal emails for the landlord show that it contacted the resident on 12 April 2021 and offered her temporary accommodation. It also said the resident had declined its offer of temporary accommodation, as she “did not want to leave the borough”.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 April 2021 and said that she felt that it was not taking the action needed. The landlord contacted the resident on 9 May 2021 and apologised that the action it had taken so far had not improved the situation. It advised it was going to review her case the next day, in light of her comments, and repeated its offer of temporary accommodation. The landlord contacted the resident again on 10 May 2021 and said:
1. It had contacted the police about her recent reports of ASB;
2. Based on the information received it was “beginning legal action” against Mr A, but could not share the details at “this stage”;
3. It offered assistance with its victim support team, who help people affected by ASB;
4. The resident had said she did not want to move to temporary accommodation, but the offer remained open;
5. It asked her to report any more incidents, and it would keep her updated on the progress of the case.
Internal emails for the landlord on 10 May 2021 show a list of actions it was going to do following the review of the resident’s ASB case. The actions were:
1. Obtain witness statements from neighbours of the resident;
2. Serve a ‘notice of seeking possession’ (NSP) to Mr A;
3. To open a “full ASB” case.
The landlord contacted the resident on 21 May 2021 and said that it had received “counter allegations” from Mr A regarding the position of her CCTV. It explained it was going to visit her property to check the positioning of cameras.
On 26 May 2021 the resident was granted an ‘injunction order’ at the county court against Mr A. The order instructed Mr A not to have any contact with the resident.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 June 2021 and told her to remove three CCTV cameras she had installed at the rear of her property, as their use was “excessive”. It told her that she only had permission for one camera at the front of the property, as long as it only captured footage of her flat and not communal areas.
The resident made four reports of noise disturbance and one report of ASB from Mr A in September 2021. In the report of ASB the resident alleged that Mr A had “attempted to barge” her out of the communal door. The landlord contacted the resident on 29 September 2021 and advised her to keep reporting any incidents to help it “build a case against the perpetrator”. It told her that it was considering evicting Mr A. It advised the resident to contact the police about the possibility of having a panic alarm installed at her property.
During October and November 2021 the landlord exchanged several emails with the police and advised it had spoken to residents in the block who had said that Mr A did cause ASB.
Ms C, the resident’s representative, contacted the landlord on 11 and 17 November 2021 and said:
1. The resident was very concerned as the “interim injunction order” was going to expire in May 2022, and Mr A had repeatedly breached the order;
2. They wished for the landlord to confirm what “legal action” it was taking against Mr A, as it had previously told the resident it was doing so;
3. Mr A had installed a CCTV camera on his front door, and it was facing the resident’s front door. Ms C asked the landlord to instruct Mr A to remove the camera “within five days”;
The landlord emailed Ms C on 19 November 2021 and said:
1. It had written to Mr A and asked him to remove the camera, as he did not have permission for one. It was visiting the property that day to check if Mr A had removed the camera;
2. It had not yet started legal action against Mr A and it had only previously said that it was seeking advice from its “legal team”;
3. It had been investigating both the resident’s allegations of ASB and Mr A’s counter allegations against the resident. It now had “sufficient evidence” to serve a NSP on Mr A “in the next few days”;
4. It repeated its offer of temporary accommodation;
On 29 November 2021 the police contacted the resident to tell her that Mr A had been charged with “harassment” and advised the resident not to contact Mr A.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 December 2021 and told it that she wanted to make a formal complaint about its handling of her reports of ASB. She said:
1. She had been “terrorised” by Mr A for years and had made “repeated complaints” to the landlord;
2. The landlord had told her it was taking legal action against Mr A, but it had not;
3. The landlord had told Ms C that it was going to serve a NSP on Mr A, but was later told it was not in a position to take legal action against him;
4. The landlord should “force” Mr A to remove his CCTV camera that was facing her property.
The landlord contacted the resident on 15 December 2021 and said that it was investigating her concerns about ASB and was taking the situation very seriously. It said it needed to “address concerns raised by the other party” but could not disclose more due to data protection and repeated its offer of temporary accommodation. Ms C responded on 15 December 2021 and said the landlord’s response was “inadequate”, and asked it to escalate the complaint to a stage two complaint. The landlord replied that its email was not its formal response, but an “acknowledgement” of the email and sought to “reassure” the resident that her concerns were being taken seriously. It advised it would formally acknowledge the resident’s complaint separately.
The landlord contacted the police on 21 December 2021 and said that it was going to issue a NSP to Mr A. The police responded asking the landlord to report any “negative reaction” or resulting “abuse” directly to the police.
Ms C contacted the landlord on 7 January 2022 as the resident had not received a response to her stage one complaint. Ms C chased the matter on 12 January 2022 and asked for an update, as it had been 28 days since the resident had raised her complaint. The landlord responded on the same day and said that it had issued a NSP to Mr A and was considering an injunction if he did not remove the camera.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 January 2022 to acknowledge her stage one complaint. It apologised for the delay in acknowledging the complaint, and said it would respond by 2 February 2022. It advised that it had credited her rent account with £25 as compensation for the delay.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 31 January 2022 and said:
1. It had intended to take legal action at the time it told her it was doing so, but “had to postpone” due to counter allegations made by Mr A. It acknowledged it did not notify the resident at the time and apologised;
2. It confirmed it had served a NSP to Mr A and it would take further legal action if he did not remove the camera;
3. Its complaint investigation had found that it had acted in line with its procedures in “addressing the ASB and offering temporary accommodation”;
4. It partially upheld the complaint and offered £50 in compensation for its failure to keep the resident “updated on the progress of the case”.
Ms C contacted the landlord on 3 February 2022 and asked for her complaint to be escalated to the next stage and said:
1. The landlord had used the counter allegations against the resident as “an excuse for delaying action against” Mr A. The landlord had not disclosed what the allegations were and asked it to do so;
2. The understanding of its stage one complaint response was that if Mr A removed the camera, it would not seek to evict him and asked to confirm if that was the landlord’s position;
3. The offer of £50 in compensation was “insulting” and the resident rejected it.
The landlord issued a ‘stage one review’ complaint response on 17 February 2022 and said:
1. It had not raised the counter allegations with the resident, as there was “no evidence” to support them;
2. Its offer of £50 in compensation was to reflect the delay in keeping the resident updated about her case, and it did not accept there were any other failings in its handling of the case;
3. It was in the process of preparing the necessary paperwork in order to commence court proceedings to evict Mr A.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 February 2022 and said that she wanted to escalate her complaint to the next stage, as she was dissatisfied with its response. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage two complaint on 28 February 2022, and said it could not start its investigation at that time, but would send a “formal acknowledgement letter” when the investigation had started.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 April 2022 and said:
1. She kept leaving messages for her housing officer, but was not getting called back;
2. She felt very intimidated by Mr A;
3. She was aware that Mr A had made “false” allegations about her to the landlord;
4. She had a “court date” relating to incidents with Mr A on 27 April 2021;
5. She had been told by the landlord that it was “still investigating” for over a year and asked it to “take some action as soon as possible”.
Ms C contacted this Service on 13 April 2022 and said that the landlord had not issued a formal response to her complaint and had just sent “holding responses”. This Service wrote to the landlord on 19 May 2022 and asked it to issue a complaint response by 6 June 2022.
The landlord sent its stage two complaint response to the resident on 20 June 2022 and said:
1. Its most recent ASB case had been open since August 2020 and its investigation had proved difficult as there were “accusations from both parties”;
2. When the resident was issued an injunction against Mr A it “changed the dynamics” of the case and it had sought the appropriate legal advice about taking action;
3. It could not progress with the NSP against Mr A “due to other allegations made”;
4. Mr A had said that his camera was for “his own protection” and it was going to visit to check that it was not filming the resident’s front door.
5. It was satisfied that it had taken the appropriate steps in the ASB case by serving a NSP to Mr A and offering temporary accommodation to the resident;
6. It apologised for the delay in its complaint handling and offered £75 in compensation in addition to the £25 it had credited to the resident’s rent account and the £50 it offered for its identified failings in its stage one response.
The resident contacted this Service on 6 July 2022 and asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. She said that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response, its offer of compensation and its handling of her reports of ASB.
We wrote to the landlord on 2 May 2023 and asked it to provide evidence of any ‘action plan’ and ‘risk assessments’ completed as part of its handling of the resident’s ASB case. The landlord responded on 12 May 2023 and said that it did “not have the records requested and the action plan was communicated to [the resident.]”. The landlord stated that it had already supplied “everything” it had “on file for this case”.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s ASB procedure states that in serious cases of ASB it should respond to the resident reporting it within 24 hours and in other cases within five working days.
The landlord’s ASB procedure states that it must complete an ‘action plan’ after a resident has reported ASB and says the action plan should be recorded on the form “ASB03”. In cases of harassment, where appropriate, it should make referrals to victim and housing support. The procedure states that all reporters must be updated at least every two weeks, even if no action is being taken at that time. Once the landlord has received a report of ASB it should carry out an initial ‘risk assessment matrix’ on the case and it should be recorded on the appropriate form.
The landlord’s ASB procedure states that the officer dealing with an ASB case should consider the “suitability of mediation” when deciding on actions in a case.
The landlord’s compensation guidance states that the landlord can award between £100 and £300 for “time and trouble” and it can award £25 for each month there is a delay in service. For distress the landlord can award £100 to £300 or for severe distress it can award up to £1000.
The landlord’s corporate complaints policy states that it operates a two stage complaints procedure: stage one and stage two (chief executive stage). At the time of the resident’s complaint, it also had a ‘stage one review’ in its complaint procedure. It states that a stage one complaint must be acknowledged within 3 calendar days.
The complaints policy states that stage one and ‘stage one review’ complaint responses will be sent within 10 working days and stage two complaint responses will be sent within 20 working days.

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

It is evident that this situation was distressing for the resident, and that she does not believe that the landlord responded appropriately to her reports of ASB. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. The Ombudsman’s role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations. We have also considered whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The resident reported on 18 August 2020, that Mr A had made a “threat of violence” against her. She contacted the landlord again on 20 August to advise that she had not received a call back in response to her report. The evidence that is available does not demonstrate that the landlord made contact with the resident in response to her report. This was a failure by the landlord to adhere to its ASB procedure. In addition, the nature of the allegation was serious and in line with its policy, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to respond within 24 hours. The detriment to the resident was distress due to expressing concerns about Mr A’s behaviour towards her, and as the landlord failed to respond she was not provided with any advice or guidance about what to do next. She also experienced additional time and trouble due to the need to contact the landlord again, on 20 August 2020, to ask it to respond to her concerns.
There were also failings by the landlord following the resident’s reports of ASB in October 2020. The resident reported concerning behaviour from Mr A, but this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord took substantive action until January 2021. The lack of record of engagement with the resident around this time is concerning, particularly considering the nature of the reports made. The resident had raised a concern that Mr A was behaving in a disturbing manner outside of her property, and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have responded to these concerns within 24 hours, as set out in its procedure.
In addition, the evidence indicates that the landlord did not complete a risk assessment when it opened the ASB case. According to its procedure it should complete an initial risk assessment when a resident makes a report about ASB, and create a record of this assessment. The decision not to do so was a failure to adhere to its ASB procedure. Due to the nature of the reports of ASB (harassment) the failure to complete a risk assessment is concerning. It is reasonable to expect that if the landlord had completed a risk assessment it would have enabled it to take an overview of the case, including risk to the resident. It could then have identified how to appropriately respond to the reports the resident was making at the time.
The landlord’s internal communications from January 2021 show that it said to the resident that enforcement action against Mr A was “unrealistic” and mediation was a more appropriate action. This approach is again concerning, given the resident had explained to the landlord, in the same conversation, that she was fearful Mr A would harm her. The landlord’s ASB procedure states that it should consider the ”suitability of mediation” when deciding on actions. Given what the resident had reported about Mr A’s behaviour and her own fear, it is unclear why the landlord decided that mediation was appropriate or suitable in this case. As outlined above, had the landlord completed the appropriate risk assessment, it may have enabled it to identify the most appropriate course of action in this case at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord’s procedure states that on opening an ASB case, it should create an action plan. The landlord has told this Service that it did communicate an action plan to the resident. However, it has not provided any evidence of this. The landlord accepted that its communication with the resident in this case amounted to a failing, as indicated in its complaint responses. It is reasonable to conclude that if the landlord had communicated any action plan it had created to the resident, she may have had a greater understanding of what action the landlord proposed to take in her case. This failing led to a detriment to the resident, as it led to confusion about what action the landlord intended to take in her case.
On 10 May 2021 the landlord offered to refer the resident to its victim support service, due to the nature of the ASB (harassment). This was reasonable and the appropriate application of its ASB procedure. It is not clear from the evidence available to this investigation whether the resident accepted the offer of the referral.
When the landlord received a counter allegation of ASB from Mr A, it ceased progressing legal action against him. This was to enable it to investigate his allegations, and was a reasonable approach in the circumstances to ensure a fair process for both the resident and Mr A. However, the landlord did not communicate this to the resident at the time, and did not seek to manage her expectations around the matter until it issued its stage one complaint response on 31 January 2022. The result was distress for the resident, as she was reasonably under the impression that the landlord was seeking to evict Mr A, as it told her on 9 May 2021. It is noted that the landlord later apologised for the confusion this caused in its stage two complaint response and outlined its position to the resident on why it could not progress with the action against Mr A.
The landlord asked both the resident and Mr A to remove cameras that they did not have permission for or deemed “excessive”. The landlord’s communication with the resident about the matter, on 3 June 2021, sought to manage her expectations. It explained clearly that it had only given permission for one camera and asked her to remove the others. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances, as the landlord saw the benefit in allowing a camera, and balanced the privacy of the other residents in the block.
In its handling of the report about Mr A’s camera the landlord told the resident it had asked him to remove the camera and may take legal action if he did not do so. It also said on 12 January 2022 that it would consider an injunction if Mr A did not remove the camera. From the evidence available, it appears the landlord did not give the resident an update on Mr A’s camera until it issued its stage two complaint response on 20 June 2022. Its complaint response indicates that its position relating to Mr A’s camera had changed. Its response stated that Mr A had told the landlord he had installed it for his “own protection” and it intended to visit to check the positioning of the camera. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord changed its position, as a result of the explanation from Mr A.
The landlord’s communication with the resident about the matter was poor. All correspondence relating to Mr A’s camera, up to this point, indicated that the landlord had asked him to remove it and was considering enforcement action. However, its stage two complaint response implied that Mr A now had permission for his camera, without expressly communicating this to the resident. This would reasonably have caused further distress to the resident, as she had been repeatedly told the landlord was working to get the camera removed, only for its position to change. This was a failure to communicate effectively and manage the resident’s expectations in relation to the matter, and to fully empathise with her situation at that time. The resident was concerned about Mr A’s behaviour, and he had been charged with harassment at this time. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to have kept the resident updated on its decision making about Mr A’s camera, and treated her concerns with more sensitivity.
The landlord’s ASB procedure states that it should update reporters of ASB every two weeks, even if it has taken no further action at that time. However, the evidence available for this investigation shows that the landlord did not proactively provide updates to the resident. The resident and Ms C repeatedly had to ask the landlord for updates on the progress of her case. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 August 2020, 17 March 2021 and 8 April 2021 to ask for updates or an explanation as to why it had not called when it said it would. In addition, Ms C had to ask the landlord to respond to the concerns she had raised on 12 January 2021. This is evidence of further poor communication by the landlord and distress, time and trouble was suffered by the resident in asking it to respond to her concerns and provide updates. The poor communication would have contributed to the feelings the resident expressed that the landlord was not taking her concern about ASB seriously, and had not taken the appropriate action against Mr A.
The landlord’s record keeping in relation the resident’s ASB case was poor. The evidence available indicates the resident often did not receive call backs from the officer dealing with her case. The evidence also indicates that the resident did not receive timely responses to reports of ASB in August and October 2020. In April 2021, the resident stated that she had been awaiting for information about a home visit, but the landlord had not been in contact. The landlord’s internal email of January 2022 discusses conversations with the resident, but direct evidence of such conversations was not supplied.
The landlord advised this Service that it had supplied all of the evidence from the resident’s file. However, records of conversations with the resident were not present in the file. Further to this, the landlord has claimed to have taken actions that it has no record of, such as action plans, risk assessments, and the opening of an ASB case. The lack of records available in relation to the resident’s ASB case can reasonably be expected to have limited its ability to respond appropriately to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord repeatedly offered the resident temporary accommodation throughout the ASB case. The resident advised that she did not want temporary accommodation, and her reasons for this are understood. The evidence that is available shows that the landlord acted here with empathy and explained it understood why the resident did not want to leave her home, but sought to make it clear that the offer remained open, should she change her mind. This was reasonable in the circumstances of this case, given the seriousness of the reports of ASB.
The evidence that is available also demonstrates that, in line with its policy, the landlord engaged in regular communication with the police and also shared information that it considered was relevant to the police’s handling of the matter. When the landlord issued Mr A with a NSP, it told the police it had done so, to ensure the police was aware there was an increased risk. This was a proactive approach and reasonable.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair (follow fair processes and recognise what went wrong), put things right, and learn from outcomes. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was proportionate and reasonable.
The landlord acknowledged that it did not keep the resident updated about the progress of her case, and offered £50 in compensation. While it was appropriate to try to put things right, the landlord failed to acknowledge the following failings in its complaint response:
1. The full extent of its failings to communicate appropriately with the resident, including that an action plan had not been appropriately communicated;
2. That a risk assessment had not been completed and recorded, as required;
3. That the resident had been adversely affected as a result of the time and trouble she experienced in contacting the landlord to follow up on her case;
4. That the resident should have updated every two weeks, regardless of progress, in line with its procedure but this did not happen;
5. That distress had been caused by its poor communication, for which its compensation policy states it can offer up to £300.
As such, the landlord’s offer of £50 in compensation in recognition of its failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB did not fully put things right for the resident. The landlord did act appropriately at points in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. However, its communication throughout was poor and it failed to apply its procedure at crucial times, including appropriately communicating an action plan and completing a risk assessment. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s complaint handling

When the resident made her stage one complaint on 15 December 2021, the landlord responded on the same day and addressed what it planned to do in relation to her concerns. The landlord failed to formally acknowledge the complaint at that time, and did not do this until 12 January 2022, 29 calendar days later, and 27 days later than set out in its complaint procedure. This delay and failure to apply its complaint procedure led to a confusing and protracted process for the resident.
It is clear from the evidence that the resident was unsure whether the landlord’s correspondence was it formally responding to her complaint or giving an update on her case. Had it formally acknowledged the complaint in line with its procedure, it is reasonable to expect that this would have reduced the confusion for the resident. The resident was caused further time and trouble, as Ms C had to contact the landlord twice, on 7 and 12 January 2021, to ask it to respond to her complaint.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 31 January 2021, 31 working days after the complaint was received. It apologised and offered £25 for its complaint handling failing at stage one. This was reasonable in the circumstances in terms of recognising the delay, and in line with its compensation policy. However, its complaint response did not acknowledge the time and trouble caused to the resident, as a result of having to chase a response to her complaint.
At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord operated a three stage complaints procedure that included a ‘stage one complaint review’. On 3 February 2022 the resident told the landlord that she was unhappy with its stage one complaint response and wanted to escalate her complaint to the next stage. The landlord opened a ‘stage one complaint review’, which was the correct application of its procedure at the time. It is noted that the landlord has now removed the ‘stage one review’ from its complaint procedure, and it operates a two stage process as recommended in the Code.
When the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage two complaint, on 28 February 2022, it told her that it said it could not start its investigation at that time. It said it would send a “formal acknowledgement letter” when the investigation had started. The landlord’s complaints procedure and the Code say that stage two complaints must be responded to within 20 working days. The Code goes further and states that “if an extension beyond 10 working days is required[…]this should be agreed by both parties”.
The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations by not saying when it would start investigating. It would have been reasonable, and in line with the Code, to agree an extension with the resident. This would have helped manage the resident’s expectations. There was poor complaint handling by the landlord and it failed to apply the Code and its own complaints procedure, which led to a prolonged complaints process. The resident suffered an inconvenience, as she did not know when the landlord would investigate her complaint. This is of particular concern given that the issues the resident had raised were ongoing and serious.
This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord wrote to the resident to tell her it had started its stage two complaint investigation, as it had said it would do. This was a failure to meet the expectations it had set out and is further evidence of poor communication and complaint handling.
The resident experienced further inconvenience, time and trouble in asking the landlord to respond to her complaint on 13 April 2022. The resident, through Ms C, contacted this Service on 13 April 2022 and 21 May 2022 and asked for assistance in getting the landlord to respond to her complaint. Had the landlord been proactive in responding to the resident’s complaint, she may not have needed to seek assistance from the Ombudsman to ask for help in getting a response.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 22 June 2022, 79 working days after the resident asked it to escalate her complaint. This was, in fact, 95 working days after she had advised that she was dissatisfied with its stage one complaint response. This was well outside of the timeframes set out in its own complaints procedure and the Code and is further evidence of poor complaint handling and time and trouble to the resident.
The delay in responding to the resident’s stage two complaint can reasonably be concluded to have impacted on its ability to appropriately respond to the substantive matter of her complaint, the ASB case. The landlord did not communicate its changed position in relation to Mr A’s CCTV until it issued the complaint response. The matter was unresolved for the resident, and during the delay she was under the impression the landlord planned to take action against Mr A. An earlier complaint response would have offered an opportunity for the landlord to set out its position to the resident sooner.
The landlord also set out its position that it was not, at that time, able to progress with eviction proceedings against Mr A. This was contrary to what it had said in its stage one review response, where it indicated it was preparing eviction paperwork. This is further evidence that the delays in its complaint handling, coupled with its poor communication about the matter, increased the detriment to the resident. The resident had been advised of action she thought the landlord was taking, only to be told something different, after a lengthy delay. The delays and contradictory responses would likely have increased the distress the resident experienced.
The landlord offered £75 in compensation to acknowledge the delay in its handling of the resident’s stage two complaint. The landlord’s compensation guidance states that it can offer £25 for each month for a delay in service. It issued its stage two complaint response 3 months later than set out in its procedure, 22 June 2022.The £75 in compensation was therefore a proportionate reflection of the delay in service the resident experienced and a reasonable application of its compensation policy.
However, the landlord’s final complaint response failed to identify what learning it had done, in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. It also failed to acknowledge the time and trouble experienced by the resident in asking it for responses and seeking assistance from this Service. The landlord’s offer of £100, in total, for its complaint handling did not fully put things right for the resident, and a relevant order has been made to the landlord in relation to its complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord failed to adhere to its ASB procedure and did not communicate well with the resident throughout the process. It failed to manage the resident’s expectations in relation to the legal action it had told her it planned to take. The resident suffered distress, time and trouble as a result of the landlord’s failings in this case. The landlord did act appropriately in relation to its offer of a referral to victim support, its communication with the police, and in keeping its offer of temporary accommodation open to the resident.
There were delays in responding to the resident’s complaint and the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations about the delays. This led to an unduly long process. The delays in its complaint handling also impacted on its handling of the ASB case, as there were missed opportunities to clarify its position in substantive issue, and outline its proposed actions. The compensation it offered for its complaint handling did not fully put things right for the resident, as it did not acknowledge the time and trouble experienced by the resident or what learning it had done.
The landlord’s record keeping in relation to the resident’s ASB case was poor. The landlord claimed to have taken actions that it has no record of. The evidence suggests that it had conversations with the resident that it made no record of. The evidence also indicates that on several occasions it did not call the resident back, or follow through on actions it had said it would take.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified within it;
2. Pay the resident £1,050 in compensation, made up of:
  1. The £50 it already offered for its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB (if it has not already done so);
  2. £400 for the distress, time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB;
  3. The £100 it already offered for its complaint handling (if it has not already done so);
  4. £500 in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to conduct training with staff responsible for overseeing ASB cases. The training should have a particular emphasis on:
1. The processes and systems for recording ASB cases to ensure that all information relating to cases is logged and accessible.
2. Application of the ASB procedure, including:
  1. The timely formulation of risk assessments and action plans.
  2. Timely responses to reports of ASB.
  3. When mediation is appropriate.
  4. Ensuring victims of ASB are proactively kept updated about the progress of the case, in line with the guidance in its procedure.
The dates of the training ordered above and content should be provided to this Service. If training has already been provided by the landlord in any of these areas since the conclusion of the complaint procedure in this case, evidence should be provided to this Service.