Karbon Homes Limited (202337281)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337281

Karbon Homes Limited inc Byker Community Trust

27 January 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house and the landlord is a housing association.

Summary of events

The evidence shows there was a history of antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports about the neighbour made by the resident. In August 2022 a mediation agreement was signed by both sides to draw a line under past events, have no contact and not to block access to drives.
The resident raised her complaint on 15 May 2023 about the landlord’s handling of her concerns about the neighbour and ASB.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 26 July 2023. It said:
1. There had been significant improvement in its communication with the resident but accepted this was not always the case. It apologised and said it would ensure she was kept updated on progress of her case.
2. It had spoken to the neighbour about the noise nuisance caused by repairing cars. The neighbour was warned that this was a breach of his tenancy agreement as the level of repairs carried out were not considered minor repairs. It understood that the neighbour had not carried out further repairs and believed the issue was resolved.
3. It had made a number of attempts to resolve the neighbour parking untaxed vehicles. It referred the matter to the local authority and police who confirmed they would not take action. It sought legal advice which said it could not remove the vehicles. It would issue a tenancy warning relating to this.
4. It had sent letters to all residents about the importance of parking considerately. This was in response to concerns about the neighbour using a visitors parking bay. It was working on a resolution for this and would continue until the matter was resolved.
5. It found that individual ASB cases were handled correctly but they were not viewed as a whole. It carried out a risk assessment and would review this on a regular basis to make sure it was taking all possible steps to help support the resident. It had agreed an action plan and visited the resident with the police to determine whether the neighbour’s behaviour constituted harassment.
6. There were some failings on its part in not seeing the incidents as linked, not involving the police sooner and poor communication. It apologised for this and said it had put things in place to address the issues raised. It would continue to work with the police to resolve the ASB and urged the resident to continue reporting incidents.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process on 16 May 2024. She said it failed to complete the agreed actions as per its stage 1 response. She told it about the neighbour’s ongoing car repairs, SORN vehicles, and how it had spoken to other neighbours instead of speaking with her first. She said it had made false promises and failed to enforce tenancy breaches.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 June 2024. It thanked the resident for her patience and apologised that its service was not “up to standard”. It said:
1. It agreed that issues were still ongoing and had not been dealt with in line with its policies. It upheld this part of the resident’s complaint. It found its communication had been poor and the resident had not been kept up to date. The neighbour had continued to repair cars and continued to park untaxed and SORN vehicles. This was a breach of tenancy and enforcement action should have been progressed.
2. Little had progressed following its stage 1 response. It had been working closely with the police who were not taking further action. It was commencing its own legal action and would serve notice in relation to the vehicle nuisance. It gave the resident assurance that it was taking the case seriously and progressing it in line with its policies.
3. Its communication and handling of the ASB complaint had been lacking. It found that it should have discussed its approach with the resident before contacting other neighbours. It would address the correct approach in its formal staff training around the handling of ASB. There was some confusion around who was responding to the resident. It found this was not acceptable and said responding in a timely manner was a fundamental part of its service. It apologised for this and upheld the complaint.
4. There was a lot of learning for it to take from the complaint and it felt the most important was it should listen when the resident reported something, respond in a timely manner, and in line with its own policies and procedures.
5. It apologised that it did not do more to support the resident and her family and provided assurance that it would going forward.
6. It offered a total compensation offer of £850 to the resident. It said this was due to its lack of response to several emails and telephone calls, delays in doing what it said in its stage 1 response, for not offering compensation at stage 1, not following its own policies regarding tenancy enforcement, and not effectively dealing with complaints about the neighbour. It also said the compensation amount was to acknowledged the distress, inconvenience and the impact this would have had on the resident.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to this Service for further consideration. She said issues were still ongoing with the neighbour.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is noted that there is a long history of ASB reports by the resident, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from November 2022 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

The tenancy agreement says that a tenant must not block access points and parking spaces must be clear of unroadworthy vehicles. Any illegal, untaxed, SORN registered or unroadworthy vehicle must not be left on any part of the property (estate) and tenants must not carry out significant repairs to vehicles.
The landlord’s estate management policy says it will conduct regular visits and will be proactive in dealing with any estate management or tenancy issues particularly where there is a potential or alleged breach of tenancy conditions. It lists areas that it will inspect which include car parking areas.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out its approach to tackling ASB. It says its focus is on prevention and a proactive victim-led approach. It is committed to investigating all reports of ASB and neighbour nuisance and will implement action that are appropriate and proportionate. It will take swift and decisive enforcement action when necessary and will work with other agencies. It explains how it will use eviction as a last resort and lists the legal and non-legal actions available to it which include warnings and mediation, amongst other things.

Neighbours behaviour

It is noted that the resident found the neighbour’s behaviour was harassment, while this Service can not determine whether an action amounted to harassment, how the resident felt has been considered further within the report. The resident reported hand gestures made by the neighbour towards the resident, in July 2023. While the landlord explained how it had attempted to contact the neighbour about this, there is no evidence to show it took any further action. It is noted that the police said it had no evidence to support the allegations and could not take further action. However, the landlord did not consider the options available to it or offer the resident support in response to her concerns. This was not appropriate.

Untaxed/SORN vehicles

Between November 2022 and April 2023 the resident made the landlord aware of the neighbour parking SORN, untaxed vehicles on the estate and completing repair work to vehicles. While the landlord’s notes show it took some action, there is no evidence to show it kept the resident updated at that time. This was not appropriate and meant the resident complained about its lack of action/update. It took the landlord until May 2023 to update the resident and apologise for not doing this sooner. While the landlord took some non-legal action and adopted a multi-agency approach in working with the police, it took until July 2023 to issue letters reminding all residents about parking, vehicles being taxed, and not repairing vehicles on the estate. It is unclear why the landlord did not take these steps sooner and this timeframe was unreasonable in the circumstances.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 response it told the resident how the neighbour had been warned about repairing cars and that this was a tenancy breach. It also said how it was considering other action in relation to the untaxed/SORN vehicles. Despite the conditions of the tenancy agreement in relation to untaxed, SORN vehicles and repair work the landlord took around 9 months to issue a warning letter. This does not demonstrate a swift and decisive action as per its policy. The landlord’s failure to take any meaningful action sooner was not appropriate.
After January 2024, the resident made further reports about untaxed vehicles. The evidence shows the landlord appropriately conducted inspections in February, March and April 2024 finding no concerns. However, in May 2024 it found vehicles were untaxed. However, it is unclear what action it took at that time. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, on 19 June 2024, it accepted the breach of tenancy and enforcement action should have been progressed. It is noted that following the stage 2 response the landlord told the resident it issued a further warning letter in line with legal advice. The evidence does not show any further issues with untaxed/SORN vehicles or repairs, however, it is accepted that overall it took the landlord too long to consider the actions available to it. This was not appropriate.

Visitor parking bays

In June 2023 the resident reported issues about the use of visitor parking bays by the neighbour. She told the landlord how she felt the neighbour was deliberately using visitor bays to prevent her and her family from using them. The landlord acted appropriately in reminding all residents to park considerately in July 2023.
When further reports were raised to it, in January 2024 the landlord told the resident that the issue was contentious as other residents had reported households with multiple cars using the visitor parking bays. It is understood that the resident felt the landlord should have discussed its approach with her before speaking with other residents. It is accepted that this would have caused the resident some upset in being made aware the landlord had spoken to her neighbours without her knowledge of its planned approach. This was not appropriate.
Between April and May 2024 the resident reported the neighbour’s visitor had blocked her daughter’s car when she was parked in a visitor parking bay. She told it how the neighbour behaved in an intimidating way at that time. It is noted that the landlord followed up on the incident with the police but took until 22 May 2024 to update the resident on its action. Within its stage 2 response, from June 2024, the landlord appropriately apologised for its delay in updating the resident and explained that there was some confusion from its staff about who would respond to the concerns.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB was not appropriate. It failed to consider the actions available to it in response to the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s behaviour (making hand gestures) and her family. It failed to act swiftly and provide the resident with support in light of her concerns about being harassed. It took too long to take meaningful action in response to reports of vehicles being repaired on the estate, untaxed and SORN registered. While it issued a warning letter in July 2023 and a further one in June 2024, it failed to do this swiftly as per its policy and failed to proactively manage the issues. The landlord’s handling of this left the resident feeling the neighbour was not taking warnings seriously.
While the landlord’s handling of the visitor parking bay issue was better, it did not keep the resident updated on its planned approach. This left the resident feeling her concerns about what she described as intimidating behaviour/harassment were not being heard or addressed. The resident has said the landlord’s handling of the issues had a serious impact on her and this has added to other neighbours treating her family differently. It has clearly been a difficult time for the resident and the Ombudsman does sympathise with her. The landlord’s failure to proactively deal with estate management and tenancy issues as per its policies was not appropriate and would have added to her worry and upset.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response it appropriately apologised for its failings, accepted where things went wrong, explained how it should have approached issues and the training it had implemented. It offered the resident £850 in compensation and said this was to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its overall handling of the issues. It is noted that following its stage 2 response it undertook visits to the estate, put in place an action plan and referred the matter to its community safety team.
The landlord’s compensation and goodwill payments policy explains that where it finds there was a failure that had a significant impact on a resident, it offers compensation between £600-£1,000. The landlord’s compensation offer of £850 falls within this banding and within the severe maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance. It is important to explain that compensation that falls within this Service’s severe maladministration banding is usually in circumstances where there has been a significant impact. When considering this, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation to its handling of ASB and the compensation amount of £850 satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints, compliments, and suggestions policy from July 2022 explains how it will issue a stage 1 response within 5 working days and allows for a 10 day extension if it can not do this. Its policy from March 2024, applicable at the time of the resident’s stage 2 escalation, says a stage 2 response must be issued within 20 working days of the landlord’s acknowledgement.
The resident raised her complaint on 15 May 2023, while the landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint the following day it did not issue its stage 1 response until 26 July 2023. This timeframe of around 2 months significantly exceeded the timeframe set within its policy. The landlord’s delayed stage 1 response and its lack of updates meant the resident had to contact it asking it to provide a response. This was not appropriate.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process on 16 May 2024. The landlord acted reasonably in accepting the escalation request in light of the time passed and in providing its response on 19 June 2024, this was in line with the timeframe set within its applicable policy.
Overall, the landlord took around 2 months to issue its stage 1 response and failed to keep the resident updated during this time. It is acknowledged that the resident would have been caused some inconvenience as she had to ask it to provide its response. The landlord’s complaint handling amounts to a service failure. When considering an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered and a compensation amount of £100 has been decided as appropriate to acknowledge the impact of the landlord’s complaint handling failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a manager to apologise to the resident for the complaint handling failings identified within this report. This should be in writing and a copy of the apology should be provided to this Service.
2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for its complaint handling failings.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord:
1. pay the resident £850 compensation it previously offered, if it has not paid this already.
2. Contact the resident to establish any ongoing issues with the neighbour and the support it can provide to the resident.