Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202214598)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214598

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

22 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a privately owned property.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
3. On 23 June 2022, the resident reported ASB issues from a neighbouring property including excessive noise, leaving food outside, fly-tipping, and spitting. She recognised the property was not managed by the landlord and asked it to contact the neighbours’ leaseholder.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 1 August 2022 as she was dissatisfied with how the local housing manager (LHM) had handled her reports of ASB. She said the LHM had referred to a previous, unrelated ASB report she had made. She wanted a qualified, competent housing officer. She also said the landlord had not confirmed whether it had an ASB policy for privately managed properties, or whether it had been followed.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 12 August 2022. It said the LHM should have reviewed correspondence prior to contacting the resident to prevent her repeating important details. It did not have a separate policy for ASB reports from privately owned properties. Under its normal ASB policy it was required to respond within 10 working days and the correct process had been followed. It was not possible to remove the LHM from their position, but it said the feedback would help improvement. It apologised for the inconvenience caused.
6. The resident escalated her complaint on 12 August 2022. She understood the landlord’s response regarding the ASB policy but thought the LHM should have provided the information when she initially requested it. She said it was unprofessional that the LHM had stopped replying to her and due to his behaviour, she thought she effectively no longer had a LHM until a new person occupied the position. She also said the landlord had not addressed her concerns that the LHM should not have referred to her previous ASB complaint as evidence as it related to a different property.
7. In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 23 September 2022, it said:
   1. The LHM should have advised the resident there was no policy for managing properties not under its jurisdiction and should not have asked the resident to resend emails.
   2. It did not agree that the LHM had stopped communicating with her. It provided a timeline of correspondence and said its 10-working day response time had been met. It recognised she may have wanted a quicker response.
   3. It agreed the LHM had incorrectly referred to the outcome of an unrelated ASB investigation as a justification for not addressing the resident’s current allegations. It would provide better training. It recognised the issue was not addressed at stage 1. 
   4. It disagreed that the resident effectively had no LHM. It was responsible for providing ongoing training and support to employees when such issues arose. It was unable to dismiss staff without just cause and following correct processes.
   5. It said the neighboring property was owned by a third party which it had no legal claim or responsibility for. It was liaising with the relevant housing association and council’s public protection unit regarding the resident’s ASB reports. It had advised the resident of the steps it could take and recognised she did not want to undertake the process, so it was unable to take further action.
   6. It offered £50 compensation for not addressing all aspects of the resident’s initial complaint, £50 for time and trouble, and £20 for its delayed stage 2 response.
8. In the resident’s complaint to the Service, she said she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports due to the poor communication, lack of clarity provided, and its decision to keep the LHM involved after his handling of the matter. She said the ASB issues are still ongoing but had somewhat improved. She wanted an apology from the landlord for insisting she continued to liaise with the LHM, adequate compensation for the time and trouble spent pursuing the issues, and evidence that the landlord has a policy for how it will handle ASB from tenants in privately owned properties, or a commitment to put one in place.

Assessment and findings

9. The landlord’s ASB policy states it considers ASB to be “conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person”. It states it will respond to reports of ASB in a timely manner, “liaise with partner organisations and work together to find solutions”, take reasonable and proportionate action, and be clear to residents about the interventions and solutions available. On 23 June 2022 the resident reported a pattern of ASB from a neighbouring private property, including excessive noise, police attendance, spitting, leaving food outside her windows, and fly-tipping. The landlord should have taken steps in line with its ASB policy and confirmed the actions it could take to support her.
10. The landlord promptly responded to the resident’s reports as it delivered a letter to the resident’s neighbours on 29 June 2022 outlining the allegations made and the behaviour expectations. It also inspected the resident’s reports of food left outside and arranged for it to be removed. This was proportionate action to the resident’s reports.
11. It is recognised that the perpetrators of the reported ASB were not tenants of the landlord, which somewhat limited the actions it could take. It was appropriate that the landlord explained this to the resident. In its complaint response, the landlord said it does not have a separate policy for ASB originating from privately owned properties. However, as the resident asked whether such policy existed on 12 July 2022, it should have responded at an earlier date to manage her expectations regarding the actions it could take. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged its omission to promptly provide the requested information. The resident has raised concerns to the Service about the landlord’s ability to effectively manage similar cases without such a policy. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to consider developing guidance to ensure its approach is consistent and it can promptly manage resident’s expectations about the actions it can take.
12. The resident asked the landlord on several occasions whether it could contact the leaseholder of the neighbour’s property. The landlord’s ASB leaflet recommends residents to contact the relevant landlord if the alleged perpetrator is not its tenant. However, it is unclear whether the leaflet was provided to the resident and the landlord did not directly respond to her requests. In future cases, the landlord should be more proactive to ensure such information is promptly provided to manage residents’ expectations of the actions it can take.
13. Considering the resident’s ongoing concerns, it may have been helpful for the landlord to have taken steps to identify the leaseholder and liaise with them to resolve the reported ASB issues. The resident informed the landlord on 26 July 2022 that the property was a hostel managed on behalf of the council and she provided the neighbour’s landlord’s contact detail and record of her correspondence with them on 22 August 2022. The landlord subsequently contacted the neighbour’s landlord on 23 August 2022. It is recognised that the resident experienced additional time and effort in pursuing the matter. However, the landlord was not necessarily obliged to contact the neighbour’s landlord in the first instance as it took alternative appropriate action in attempt to resolve the ASB, and the overall time taken for it to contact the landlord was not necessarily excessive.
14. On 26 July 2022 the LHM said he had attended the property and found no evidence of rubbish and it was unable to take further action without clear evidence. He signposted the resident to the police and environmental health for further support. The LHM said a previous ASB officer also found no evidence to support the resident’s concerns. The resident subsequently raised concerns about the LHM’s investigation into the matter, as her previous ASB reports related to a different property. It was unreasonable for the LHM to draw conclusions from the previous, unrelated ASB reports as supporting evidence in this case, and the LHM did not demonstrate a fair or impartial approach.
15. It is evident that the LHM’s handling of the ASB issues has impacted the resident’s trust in the landlord and she said she wanted to liaise with a different staff member. It is important to note that it would not necessarily be feasible for the landlord to provide an alternative LHM due to staff limitations. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised that it had incorrectly referred to an outcome of an unrelated ASB investigation. It said it would provide additional training so that concerns were dealt with “proper consideration and greater empathy”. It said it was unable to dismiss staff without just cause and following due process, but it would provide ongoing training and support. This was a reasonable response as the landlord demonstrated it had learned from the outcome of the complaint and had taken steps to put things right and prevent a recurrence of the issue, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. However, as the resident told the Service she no longer feels comfortable contacting her LHM about any housing issues, the landlord should consider whether it can provide her with a new point of contact. 
16. The landlord also offered £120 compensation comprised of £50 for time and trouble caused, £50 for not addressing all aspects of the complaint in the stage 1 response and £20 for the delayed stage 2 response. This was in line with the Service’s remedies guidance, which states awards of £50-£100 are proportionate when a service failure for a short period of time causes stress, inconvenience, time, and trouble to a resident.
17. In view of the evidence, the landlord largely took appropriate steps to try and resolve the resident’s reports of ASB. However, it missed several opportunities to manage the resident’s expectations regarding the actions it would take, which caused her additional time and trouble pursuing the issue. It was also inappropriate that the landlord used a previous ASB investigation as evidence that no further action was required. However, it has appropriately acknowledged and apologised for its failings and offered reasonable redress in its final response.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from a privately owned property satisfactorily.

Recommendations

19. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident £120 as offered in its final complaint response.
20. The landlord should consider adding information into its ASB policy on how it will manage ASB from privately owned properties and outline the extent of its enforcement powers.
21. The landlord should consider whether it can provide a different staff member as the resident’s point of contact.