Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

MHS Homes Ltd (202330794)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330794

MHS Homes Ltd

31 October 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:
    1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) in the communal areas of the block.
    2. The resident’s reports of repair issues with the communal entrance doors.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy at the property, a 1 bedroom ground floor flat in a purpose-built block of flats. The tenancy commenced in April 2018. The resident informed the landlord that he suffers from anxiety and depression for which he takes medication.
  2. The resident reported ASB to the landlord on several occasions in 2021 and 2022. The resident said that people were forcing entry into the communal areas of the property through both the front and back communal entrance doors. He reported they were using and dealing drugs in the communal area, causing a noise nuisance and had threatened the resident. The resident told the landlord that he did not feel safe in his home. The landlord organised some repairs to the communal entrance doors but the resident reported the issues continued.
  3. The resident continued to report the ASB in 2023 and the landlord logged the resident’s reports as a complaint on 25 July 2023. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 7 August 2023 and agreed it should have provided more updates to the resident regarding the repair work required to the communal entrance doors. It confirmed the type of door it was going to install had a long lead time and that it would share an update when it had received an installation date.
  4. The resident continued to report ASB and the landlord escalated his complaint on 3 November 2023. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 30 November 2023 after a visit to the resident. In its response it said it had ordered a stronger magnetic lock for the front door, reglazed the back door and agreed to put up CCTV signs as a deterrent to the perpetrators. It concluded that it had taken too long to complete the repairs and it had been slow to respond to the reports of ASB. It said it would confirm dates for the remaining actions as soon as possible and confirmed it had already provided information relating to the resident’s options for moving home. It confirmed it was already liaising with the police and was exploring the installation of CCTV at the block.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint to this Service. In doing so, he said he wanted the landlord to replace the back door and reinforce the front door. He also said it had taken the landlord too long to take any action.
  6. It is relevant to note that the resident has informed this Service that the issues with ASB have continued following the landlord’s stage 2 response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

  1. Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident has said this situation has had a detrimental impact on his health, including a deterioration in his mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s experience, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. He may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
  2. The resident has informed this Service that there are ongoing incidents of ASB within the block. Though it is appreciated that this is distressing for the resident, the Ombudsman’s role is to investigate complaints brought to it that have exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints process. This investigation report, therefore, concerns the matters which were the subject of the resident’s formal complaint in July 2023 and which were the subject of the landlord’s final response dated 30 November 2023. Consideration has been given to the actions the landlord took beyond this date in terms of the commitments it made within its stage 2 response. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to contact the resident to confirm if he would like to make a further complaint regarding its handling of the more recent ASB.

The resident’s reports of ASB in the communal areas of the block.

  1. It is evident that this situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to first explain that the Ombudsman’s role is not to decide if the actions of the intruders amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
  2. Prior to logging the formal complaint, the resident made at least 12 reports of intruders (the perpetrators) causing ASB in the communal areas of the block between 26 December 2021 and 27 May 2023. These reports detailed:
    1. The back door did not securely close or lock, the front door was easily forced open, and other residents were intentionally leaving the doors unlocked. He believed this was because the other residents did not have fobs to gain access to the building.
    2. The perpetrators were using and dealing drugs in the communal area. He could smell weed in his flat.
    3. The perpetrators were making a lot of noise which was disturbing him.
    4. The perpetrators were leaving rubbish behind in the communal areas. This included condoms on occasions.
    5. On 6 January 2022 the resident told the landlord he had asked the perpetrators to leave and they had threatened to smash his windows in.
    6. On 16 December 2022 the resident told the landlord he had been threatened with a knife a few weeks ago and the police had been informed.
    7. He was concerned for his safety and mentioned that he had a 2 year old daughter who visited the property often.
    8. He said the ongoing issues had caused his mental health to worsen.
  3. In response to the resident’s reports of ASB the landlord:
    1. Completed repairs to the communal entrance doors on several occasions.
    2. Visited the property on 1 February 2023, jointly with the police, and said:
      1. It could not take action against the perpetrators as they were not its residents.
      2. It could only consider installing CCTV or similar measures based on complaints received and so far it had not received any.
      3. It would look into renewing the communal entry doors as they were noted by the police as easy to force open.
  4. The resident made a complaint which the landlord logged on 25 July 2023. After the formal complaint had been logged, the resident continued to report the ASB and the landlord:
    1. Confirmed that a replacement door was on order in its stage 1 response.
    2. Called the resident on 17 November 2023 and kept in regular contact with the resident regarding his concerns from this point.
    3. Completed a risk assessment on 17 November 2023 and confirmed that the risk to the resident had increased due to threats made to the resident.
    4. Visited the resident on 29 November 2023.
    5. Contacted the police for support on 29 November 2023.
    6. Requested a quote for CCTV cameras to be installed at the block on 29 November 2023.
    7. Identified in its stage 2 response that it had been slow to respond to the resident’s reports of ASB and apologised for this.
    8. Confirmed an action plan for the next steps in its stage 2 response of 30 November 2023.
    9. Clarified that the front door would not be replaced and completed further repairs to the front door on 1 December 2023.
    10. Installed CCTV signs as a deterrent on 1 December 2023.
    11. Spoke to other residents at the block on 1 December 2023 who reported the perpetrators seemed to be friends with someone who lived in the block who was letting them in.
    12. Requested a greater police presence at the block on 5 December 2023. The police confirmed they had added the block to their patrols on 7 December 2023.
    13. On 3 January 2024 clarified that the back door would not be replaced until after the ASB issues had been resolved due to the repeated vandalism of the doors.
    14. Completed a multi-agency door knocking exercise at the block on 9 January 2024 with representatives from the police, local authority and fire service. This resulted in some names of perpetrators being provided to the police from other residents in the block.
    15. Requested a quote for temporary CCTV on 20 December 2023 (including some hidden cameras) which was installed in April 2024 and went live on 10 May 2024.
    16. Surveyed the communal entrance doors on 29 January 2024 and confirmed both the front and back door at the block needed replacing and that CCTV was required at the block.
    17. Confirmed to the resident that nothing more could be done to repair or reinforce the front door as it already had the strongest form of magnetic lock in place.
  5. Although the landlord’s actions set out above were reasonable, the landlord failed to:
    1. Contact the resident within 72 hours upon receiving the reports of ASB, as set out in its ASB policy, between December 2021 to July 2023. It is noted that the landlord’s communication with the resident significantly improved from November 2023.
    2. Act on the resident’s reports that other residents were leaving the doors open, such as by sending letters to the block.
    3. Complete a risk assessment until 17 November 2023, despite the resident reporting ASB incidents since December 2021.
    4. Consider the threats to the resident’s safety until 17 November 2023 and offer the appropriate level of support. This was despite the resident’s previous ASB reports detailing instances where his home and his personal safety had been threatened.
    5. Seek out multi-agency solutions, such as increased police presence and door knocking, until December 2023.
    6. Take practical steps such as installing CCTV signs, dummy cameras or a functioning CCTV system at an earlier stage.
    7. Ensure the CCTV system was approved and installed in a timely manner.
  6. Where there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether any redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology and an action plan), was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  7. The landlord acted fairly in apologising to the resident and identifying that it had been slow to respond to the reports of ASB. It also tried to put things right by confirming an action plan. However, the action plan was lacking in any commitment to timescales and it took the landlord an unreasonable length of time to complete actions proposed within the plan. For example, in its stage 2 response, it said it would explore the possibility of installing CCTV at the property but this took 6 months to install and activate. Given the resident had received threats to his safety and property, and the police had recommended CCTV be installed as early as February 2023, it was unreasonable that it took the landlord so long to complete the installation. The landlord also did not acknowledge the other failings identified above in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
  8. It is of particular note that the landlord’s internal emails suggest the landlord was not aware of the risk posed to the resident until the telephone call on 17 November 2023. This was misleading as the evidence shows the resident reported threats of his windows being smashed in and being threatened with a knife prior to this date. The evidence suggests that a new Housing Officer was assigned during this time. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that any handover completed between the staff members may not have given the new staff member sufficient information relating to the case. There was also a period in July 2023 where the resident did not appear to have been told that he had a new Housing Officer. Although it is positive that the landlord eventually identified the risk to the resident in November 2023 and subsequently took actions in line with this risk (in accordance with its ASB policy), it is unreasonable that the landlord failed to acknowledge that it should have identified this risk earlier. Under paragraph 54.g of the Scheme, the landlord is ordered to complete a case review to identify improvements that can be made to its handover process to prevent similar failures occurring in future.
  9. The landlord’s compensation policy notes it will make offers up to £500 where a serious service failure has taken place. This includes instances where a persistent failure has occurred over a prolonged time. The landlord’s failure to appropriately identify the risk to the resident at an earlier stage, and its failure to take swift action even after it had identified the risk, are considered persistent failures. The landlord did not offer the resident any compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience he had told the landlord he had experienced and this was inappropriate. An order has been made for £500 compensation, in line with the maximum amount outlined in the landlord’s compensation policy.
  10. In conclusion, although from November 2023 onwards the landlord generally engaged well with the resident, introduced a multi-agency approach, and installed CCTV at the property, it took the landlord too long to complete these steps. Although the landlord identified that it had failed to act earlier in the process, it failed to offer proportionate redress to the resident in recognition of these failures. This investigation has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. Orders have been made below including an order for compensation as outlined above.

The resident’s reports of repair issues with the communal entrance doors.

  1. The property is on the ground floor of the purpose-built block of flats. The front communal entrance door is a metal door with an electronic fob system operating a magnetic lock. The back communal entrance door is a wooden door with two glass panels.
  2. The evidence shows the resident reported issues with the front and back communal entrance doors being broken or vandalised on at least 12 occasions prior to his formal complaint being logged and on at least 22 occasions between July 2023 and May 2024. The landlord’s repair records do not clearly show each attendance but its emails confirm it attended on:
    1. 15 November 2022 to repair the doors.
    2. 3 January 2023 to repair the doors.
    3. 29 January 2023 to survey the door. The landlord recommended replacing both doors.
    4. 1 March 2023 to repair the doors.
    5. 29 November 2023 to repair the doors and survey the front door locking system.
    6. 1 December 2023 to repair the front door locking system and replace the broken glass in the back door.
    7. 25 January 2024 to survey the front door for additional magnetic locks. The landlord recommended replacing both doors.
  3. It is evident the landlord attended and completed repairs to the doors on multiple occasions. However this investigation is not satisfied that the landlord attended every time the doors were reported as damaged. Nor are we satisfied that it attended within a reasonable timescale on each occasion. The landlord’s repairs policy does not specify a timescale by which repairs of this nature should be attended. However, given the known ASB activity at the block, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have applied some urgency to repairs involving the security of the building. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have attended urgently, usually within 5 working days, on each occasion to make the building safe. The landlord acted inappropriately in failing to attend urgently to each report.
  4. The evidence shows the landlord’s contractor recommended both doors were replaced on at least 2 occasions. The landlord informed the resident that a replacement door was on order and implied this was a replacement front door. It is unclear from the evidence exactly when the door was ordered. However the landlord’s internal emails on 21 August 2023 suggest the door had been ordered at this point. However, in September 2023 it became apparent that it was in fact a replacement back door that was on order and the front door would not be replaced. Instead, it informed the resident that it would be installing a stronger magnetic locking system to the front door. The landlord later changed its mind again and confirmed it would not be replacing the back door until the ASB had been resolved due to the repeated vandalism. It also then confirmed that the stronger magnetic locking system it had proposed for the front door did not exist and therefore the front door was already achieving the highest possible level of security available at the time.
  5. With regards to the back door, it is understandable that the landlord did not want to replace the door knowing it would likely be vandalised immediately. However, it is unreasonable that the landlord raised the resident’s expectations in this matter by telling him on multiple occasions it was on order and would be replaced. It is also unreasonable that, once the landlord had identified it would not be installing the new door until the ASB had been resolved, the landlord failed to take any urgent steps to resolve the ASB, such as installing CCTV as assessed above. As of the date of this report, there is no evidence of the landlord installing the new back door, nor of it providing an update on this to the resident. The landlord is ordered to provide an update to the resident on the replacement back door including proposed timescales for its installation.
  6. In terms of the front door, it is reasonable that the landlord explored options to upgrade the existing magnetic locking system and then confirm it was already at the maximum security level. It acknowledged that, with enough force, any door could be forcibly opened. However, as above, it is unreasonable that it repeatedly raised the resident’s expectations on this matter, informing him that it had ordered a stronger magnetic lock which then transpired not to exist.
  7. Although it appears the landlord had good intentions by sharing regular updates on the door repairs and replacements, this led to confusion and disappointment when the original proposed outcomes were not achieved. This is a failing and the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its poor handling of the situation.
  8. Alongside this, the landlord’s internal emails show a significant level of confusion around which department was responsible for ordering and paying for the replacement doors. This confusion meant the landlord wasted time seeking confirmation of whether the replacement doors had been ordered and also likely led to some of the miscommunication around what works would be done at the property. We have included reference to the landlord’s communication between repair departments in the order we have made under paragraph 54.g of the Scheme.
  9. The resident made the landlord aware of the impact the repair issues were having on him, including a deterioration in his mental health. There is no evidence that the landlord took the resident’s wellbeing into account when prioritising this work and the landlord has not acknowledged this within its complaint responses. This was unreasonable and the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for this.
  10. The landlord did not offer the resident any compensation in its complaint response. We have made an order that the landlord pay the resident £250. This amount is within the range of awards set out in landlord’s compensation policy for delay and distress which were the landlord’s responsibility.
  11. In conclusion, although the landlord made several attempts to repair the doors and eventually confirmed it had done all it could to reinforce the front door, its communication on the matter was confusing and unreasonably raised the resident’s expectations. The landlord has also failed to evidence that it attended to repair the door within a reasonable timescale every time it was reported as broken and failed to offer proportionate redress for the failures in its handling of the matter. This investigation has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the doors and orders have been made below.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will consider all expressions of dissatisfaction, however made, as complaints. In this case, it is unclear from the evidence why the landlord chose to log the resident’s contact in July 2023 as a complaint when it did not apply the same approach to his earlier contact. For example, the resident’s report of ASB on 4 April 2023 demonstrated he was clearly unhappy with the landlord’s lack of action to date. This was a service failure and the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation in recognition of this. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which says it may make offers of this amount for minor service failures acknowledging its responsibility for the failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of repair issues with the communal entrance doors.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a sincere written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Provide an update to the resident on the status of the replacement back door.
    3. Pay the resident £800 comprising:
      1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was likely to have incurred as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling the reports of ASB.
      2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was likely to have incurred as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling the repairs to the communal entrance doors.
      3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was likely to have incurred as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
    4. Contact the resident regarding his reports of ongoing ASB concerns and confirm the status of his current ASB case. If the resident confirms ongoing ASB concerns, within a further 2 weeks the landlord must agree an action plan with the resident and send a copy of the action plan to the resident and this Service.
  2. Within 8 weeks, under paragraph 54.g of the Scheme, the landlord is ordered to complete a case review identifying:
    1. Improvements that can be made to its handover process where staff changes occur to prevent similar failures occurring in future.
    2. Improvements that be made in clarifying responsibilities across its repairs departments to ensure accurate information is readily available to all relevant staff, especially those directly involved with complaints.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should contact the resident to confirm if the resident would like to open a new complaint about its handling of the more recent ASB matters.

 

Chat to us