Midland Heart Limited (202226996)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226996

Midland Heart Limited

20 December 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. Handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
3. Response to the resident’s request for a transfer.
This investigation will also consider the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She has lived in the property, a 3-bed house, since 2010.
The resident has not disclosed any vulnerabilities to the landlord or this Service.
The records show that the resident first reported ASB from her neighbour in July 2020. She started reporting ASB again in December 2020. The reports included the neighbour:
1. Throwing rubbish into her garden.
2. Allowing their dog to foul in her front garden.
3. Causing noise nuisance from loud music. She also reported the dog barking all the time.
On 3 June 2021 the resident made a complaint (Complaint 1) about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB and the conduct of the officer investigating the ASB case. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 30 June 2021. It:
1. Outlined the ASB reports made by the resident, the advice it had given, and actions it had taken.
2. Explained there was insufficient evidence to support her reports and allow it to act.
3. Said she had reported that her fence had been “ripped down” but had provided no further information about this. It said if she provided further information, it would investigate this issue.
4. Said it had found no service failures in the way it had handled her ASB case.
On 5 October 2022 the resident telephoned the landlord. She said she wanted to make a complaint (Complaint 2) about the way the landlord had handled her ASB issues. The landlord did not log this as a complaint.
On 3 February 2023 the resident again asked the landlord to raise a complaint (Complaint 3) as she said she was experiencing racism and discrimination from its staff. The landlord emailed the resident acknowledging the complaint on 13 February 2023 and asked her to provide further information. The resident duly provided this. However, the landlord then closed the complaint stating that the resident only wanted a call back from a senior manager.
On 8 June 2023 we wrote to the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaints about its handling of her reports of ASB. We advised that as a resolution to the complaint the resident had said she wanted compensation and a transfer to another property.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 9 June 2023. It provided its stage 1 complaint response on 22 June 2023. It said:
1. It recognised that the resident wanted a manager to deal with her complaint and not the complaints team. However, in line with its policy the complaints team had investigated the complaint.
2. ASB
  1. The evidence she had provided did not meet the threshold for its tenancy services team to take action.
  2. It had offered to install noise monitoring equipment and was waiting for this to become available.
  3. It had also recommended mediation. If she was interested in exploring this, she should let it know.
3. Transfer request
  1. As she was currently “adequately housed” she did not meet the requirements in its policy for a transfer. It recommended that she register and bid for properties on its portal.
  2. Half of its available properties were allocated via local authority nominations. If she had not already done so she could register with the local authority.
  3. She may also wish to consider a mutual exchange.
4. It could not identify any service failures and had handled her ASB reports appropriately.
The resident replied to the landlord on the same day and said she wanted her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of its process. She said that the landlord had not investigated the complaint properly and that the response had been based on the officer’s opinion not fact. She said she felt bullied by the landlord’s staff.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 23 June 2023 and provided its stage 2 complaint response on 24 July 2023. It said:
1. It confirmed its stage 1 position regarding its handling of her reports of ASB.
2. Report of bullying
  1. It had found no evidence of bullying by the stage 1 complaint officer or any other staff. If she had evidence to support her reports it would consider this.
3. Transfer request
  1. Its stage 1 response had incorrectly advised her to bid on its portal for a property. As she was adequately housed it was unable to accept an application from her.
  2. It offered £50 compensation in recognition of this miscommunication.
  3. It again recommended that she consider applying for a mutual exchange.
4. Complaint handling
  1. It acknowledged that its stage 2 response was late and offered a further £50 compensation for this.
The resident escalated her complaint to this Service as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues and of her complaint. The complaint became duly made on 16 April 2024.

Legal and policy framework

The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that tenants agree not to do anything that causes nuisance or annoyance to others in the area.
The landlord’s ASB policy states it will apply a “reasonable” approach to ASB. It says in deciding whether to act it will consider how regular or persistent the behaviour is and whether there is a risk of harm.
The ASB policy also states the landlord will:
1. Record all cases of ASB.
2. Carry out a risk assessment to determine the priority of the case.
3. Respond to:
  1. ‘Personal’ or targeted ASB (where there have been threats or actual violence) within 1 working day.
  2. ‘Nuisance’ (including noise nuisance, neighbour disputes, verbal abuse, and criminal activity) within 5 working days.
  3. ‘Environmental’ issues such as vandalism, animal nuisance and fly tipping within 7 working days.
4. Agree with the reporting person what actions it will take and the frequency of updates.
5. Decide what action to take based on evidence gathered by it and by the reporting person.
6. Close cases when:
  1. The issue has been resolved to the resident’s satisfaction.
  2. It has taken all available action to resolve the issue.
  3. The resident fails to assist by providing evidence and no action is available without further evidence.
  4. There is no evidence to provide the ASB has occurred.
7. Advise all parties when the case is closed.
The landlord operates an unreasonable persistent complainant policy. The policy states:
1. Unacceptable actions, unreasonable persistence and demands may result in it restricting contact with the resident.
2. Such behaviour includes:
  1. Aggressive or abusive behaviour.
  2. Behaviour which causes “significant resource issues or adversely affect the [landlord’s] ability to carry out [its] landlord functions”.
  3. Residents who will not accept that it is unable to assist them further or provide a level of service other than in line with its service standards.
3. It will usually issue a verbal and written warning before restricting contact.
4. It may also act against the resident’s tenancy.
The landlord’s allocations policy states that existing tenants that are “adequately housed” are not eligible to transfer. It says it expects such residents to apply for a mutual exchange.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that the policy does not cover requests for a new service, this includes reports of ASB. It also states that complaints must be made no more than 6 months from the date the event occurred unless there are exceptional circumstances.
The policy states the landlord will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Where it requires an extension to these timeframes it will agree this with the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Complaints made to the landlord

We acknowledge that Complaint 1 did not complete the landlord’s internal complaints process. However the evidence shows that the resident stated on several occasions that she was unhappy with the outcome of Complaint 1. The landlord should reasonably have treated these communications as an escalation request. The landlord failed to do so and this was a complaint handling failure. We have therefore investigated the resident’s concerns that formed part of Complaint 1.
The resident tried to raise Complaint 2 in October 2022. She specifically said she wished to complain about the landlord’s handling of her ASB issues. The landlord did not log this as a complaint. In February 2023 the resident again asked the landlord to raise a complaint. While it initially logged a complaint it later closed this without providing a response. It said it had done so because the resident did not want to raise a complaint and instead wanted a call back from a senior manager. The evidence we have seen does not support this view.
Due to these complaint handling failures we have considered the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues from June 2020, 12 months before her first complaint.

Concerns about discrimination

The resident has expressed concern that landlord staff discriminated against her. Whether or not the landlord has breached the Equality Act (2010) is a matter that would appropriately be decided by a court, not the Ombudsman. The resident could contact Citizen’s Advice or seek legal advice if she needs assistance regarding legal action.
While we cannot determine whether there has been discrimination, we have considered whether the landlord’s response to her concerns about the conduct of its staff was reasonable and proportionate.

Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

On 3 December 2020 the resident called the landlord and reported ASB from her neighbour. She said her neighbour was throwing litter into her garden and allowing her dog to defecate in her front garden. She said her neighbours were playing loud music late at night and that their dog barked all day.
The landlord allocated an officer to the ASB case on 7 December 2020. The officer attempted to call the resident but she did not answer and there was no voicemail facility. The officer completed a “desktop triage” of the case and recorded the risk as “low to medium” as it was a “neighbourly dispute”.
We accept that the landlord needed to complete a risk assessment to determine the priority of the case. It was therefore not unreasonable that it completed an initial risk assessment based on the information it had to hand. We would reasonably expect however that it would complete a further assessment, or take steps to confirm that its assessment was correct, with the resident as soon as possible. That we have not seen evidence that it did so was a shortcoming.
On 10 December 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident who confirmed she had the Noise App to record noise nuisance. The call notes show it explained to her that the fencing issue was not ASB. It added that repairing the fence was the resident’s responsibility. This was reasonable and in line with its policy.
The call notes also stated the landlord agreed an action plan with the resident on the phone. This was in line with its policy and industry best practice. The landlord sent a copy of the action plan to the resident the following day. The action plan said the resident would contact the police if threatened, keep a log of further incidents, use the Noise App to evidence any noise nuisance, and provide evidence of any rubbish dumping. The action plan said the landlord would contact the neighbour, update the resident on 23 December 2020, and review the action plan in February 2021. The actions outlined were reasonable.
The landlord called the resident’s neighbour regarding the ASB reports on 11 December 2020. The neighbour denied the reports and said she had children so did not play loud music at night. That the landlord put the report to the resident’s neighbour and gave them the opportunity to discuss them was fair and reasonable.
The landlord telephoned the resident on 24 December 2020. It said that she had only submitted one noise recording in which it could “just” hear a dog barking but this was not continuous. The landlord said it would call her again on 14 January 2021. That the landlord continued to monitor the case was reasonable.
On 18 January 2021 the landlord telephoned the resident. We note that this was 4 days later than agreed. While this was not a long delay, it caused frustration to the resident. The landlord explained to her that over a period of 4 weeks she had submitted 5 recordings of a dog barking and that the noise had been “low”. It asked her to continue using the Noise App for a few more weeks and that it would then consider action only if the noise was “continuous and happening most days”. It agreed to call her on 8 February 2021. The landlord called the resident as agreed. It was unable to speak with her, but left a voicemail. It tried again on 23 February 2021, but again left a voicemail message
We consider that the landlord made a reasonable attempt to manage the resident’s expectations. Its explanation was in line with its ASB policy. The landlord appropriately shared what evidence it had reviewed and the initial conclusions it had reached. This was appropriate and in addition to managing expectations demonstrated that it was being transparent.
On 9 March 2021 the landlord telephoned the resident again. Its call notes state that she reported that there had been no further issues and she was happy for it to close the case. As there was no evidence of ASB at a level which would require further action it was appropriate that the landlord closed the case. That it discussed this with the resident prior to doing so and obtained her agreement was good practice and in line with its own policy.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 17 April 2021. She reported that she had found dog faeces in her front garden and believed it was from her neighbour’s dog. The officer said that unless she could evidence that it was the neighbour’s dog he would not open a new case. As there was no evidence to support the resident’s concern that this was part of a targeted behaviour by her neighbour its decision not to re-open the case was reasonable.
On 22 May 2021 the resident again contacted the ASB officer and reported that her neighbour’s dog had defecated in her garden. She did not have evidence to prove it was her neighbour’s dog and therefore it did not log a case. Emails sent by the resident show she was unhappy with this decision. This Service considers that as there was no evidence to support the resident’s report, the landlord’s decision not to re-open the case was not unreasonable.
The landlord opened a new ASB case following the resident making Complaint 1. It is not clear from the information provided on what date it opened the case.
The landlord closed the ASB case on 4 October 2021. It stated that the resident had “refused to engage in gathering evidence” in relation to her ASB report. The basis for the landlord’s comments is unclear. While we note the resident had not provided supporting evidence, it appears that she was unable to. This was as opposed to her being unwilling to do so.
On 12 September 2022 the landlord opened a new ASB case in response to a report by the resident. The case notes show she had reported that her neighbour had:
1. Spread lies about her.
2. Shouted abuse at her.
3. Had her associates threaten her with violence.
4. Been causing noise nuisance by playing loud music all day and letting her dog bark all day and night.
The landlord completed a risk assessment on 16 September 2022 which scored 17. It is not clear whether it classed this as high, medium, or low risk. We have not seen that it agreed an action plan with the resident. This was a departure from its ASB policy and was a failing.
On 27 September 2022 the resident telephoned the landlord. She said it was allowing the ASB to continue. She said that her neighbour had “mental health issues” and that she could hear them talking through the walls about hurting people. The landlord said it was “working on this case” and would call her the following day.
Given the potential seriousness of the behaviour reported by the resident we would reasonably have expected the landlord to refer her to the police. The evidence does not show that it did so, and that was inappropriate.
On 28 September 2022 the resident called the landlord again and said she was unhappy that no one had called her yet. It is not clear whether the landlord returned her call. That it has not evidenced doing so is unreasonable.
The landlord contacted the police on 29 September 2022 requesting information about reports made by the resident. The police confirmed she had reported her neighbour “shouting things from within their property thought to be aimed at [the resident]”. It said that there was no officer assigned to the case as it had been “filed”. It was positive that the landlord worked together with other agencies to investigate the case.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 5 October 2022 and asked for a call back. She said she believed her neighbour’s visitors had dropped litter on her drive. We have not seen evidence that the landlord returned her call. This reasonably caused the resident frustration and distress as she felt she was being ignored.
On 18 October 2022 the landlord had arranged to visit the resident to discuss the ASB case. The resident cancelled as there was a case of COVID-19 in her home. It was not unreasonable that this was rearranged considering the circumstances.
The resident reported on 20 October 2022 that her neighbour had been spreading rumours that she used drugs. It is not clear whether the landlord responded to this report. This is a further example of shortcomings in its communication. However, it is noted that on 25 October 2022 the landlord appropriately spoke with the resident’s neighbour about the ASB reports. The landlord’s notes following the visit stated that it would be closing the ASB case as there was no evidence to support the resident’s reports.
On 26 October 2022 the resident reported that her neighbour was “shouting and hurling abuse” through the bedroom wall. She asked for an update on the case. The following day the resident reported that her neighbour was spreading false rumours about her family.
On 31 October 2022 the landlord telephoned the resident and confirmed the details of their communication via email. It said that her neighbour had denied the reports against her. It asked her to provide recordings to support her reports and police report reference numbers. It said if she did not provide evidence by 7 November 2022, it would close the case.
While the landlord was correct that the resident had not provided evidence to support her reports, it had not demonstrated that it had considered other options for gathering evidence. Given the behaviours described by the resident it would have been reasonable for it to consider offering noise monitoring equipment at this time. It also could reasonably have considered speaking to other neighbours. That it did not was a missed opportunity.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 9 November 2022. The landlord explained that it was closing her case as she had not provided evidence of the reported ASB. It confirmed this by email. The landlord closed the case on 23 November 2022.
On 30 November 2022 the resident reported further ASB. She said she could hear her neighbour making derogatory remarks about her through the walls. Days later she reported that they were shouting rude comments about her through the walls again. The landlord replied and explained that it had closed the case due to a lack of evidence. It advised the resident to record any future incidents.
On 17 February 2023 the tenancy services manager (TSM) called the resident following her request for a call from a manager. The resident was unable to take the call. It is unclear if a further call was attempted. However, on 24 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord again. She reported that she could hear her neighbour and their family talking about her in their home. The TSM replied to the resident and advised they were on annual leave until 2 March 2023 but would contact her on their return.
We note that the landlord logged a safeguarding case at this time rather than an ASB case. Its decision-making process for this is not clear from the information provided. We do not necessarily consider that the landlord’s decision to raise such a case was unreasonable however we would expect it to clearly document its reasoning for doing so.
The resident contacted the TSM twice in March. She made a further report of ASB and asked what action the landlord would be taking. There is no evidence the TSM replied to either email. This was unreasonable and a failing in the landlord’s communication. We note that the TSM called the resident on 24 March 2023. It is unclear whether the TSM was able to speak with the resident. If a conversation had taken place, this was not documented.
On 27 March 2023 the resident reported that she could again hear her neighbour and their visitors making abusive comments about her through the walls.
The resident was repeatedly reporting being able to hear her neighbour’s having such exchange. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether there may be a deficiency in the sound insulation between the properties. That it did not consider this possibility was a further missed opportunity. While the insulation may not have been a problem, investigating the option would have demonstrated to the resident that it was taking her concerns seriously.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 3 April 2023 and said she had spoken to the police regarding recent incidents with her neighbour. She said she had confirmed that she wished for it to take action against her neighbour. In response to the resident’s report, it would have been reasonable of the landlord to make enquiries with the police. There is no evidence that it did so, and this was unreasonable.
Records indicate that the landlord attempted to visit the resident’s neighbour on 4 April 2023 but that they were not home.
Throughout April 2023 the resident made several reports that she could hear her neighbour speaking about her through the walls. On 24 April 2023, the landlord had advised that it could install temporary CCTV and noise monitoring equipment. This was a reasonable and proportionate suggestion. However, it is noted that during April 2023 the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s request for an update and failed to update her following a visit with the neighbour. The lack of communication from the landlord during this month left the resident feeling that she was being ignored.
The landlord replied to the resident on 4 May 2023 and said it had concluded its investigations into her complaint and asked to meet her to discuss its findings. The resident replied on the same day and asked if the landlord could email her its findings instead. As she had not received a response from the landlord the resident emailed it again on 12 May 2023.
The resident called the landlord on 22 May 2023 and asked to speak to the TSM. It advised her that she was out of the office. We have not seen evidence that the landlord returned her call. This was a further example of poor communication which caused the resident to feel frustrated and ignored.
On 9 June 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and said she was now at the “top of the list” for noise monitoring equipment. It said it did not appear to have received any recent reports of ASB from her and asked if the issues were ongoing.
The resident replied and said she had not reported any further incidents because the landlord had been “unresponsive”. She said she had asked it to email her its findings about her ASB case in April and had received no response. She confirmed that the ASB was still occurring. The resident’s frustrations were reasonable. She had requested 3 times between 4 May 2023 and 22 May 2023 that the landlord provide her with its findings and it had not responded.
On 19 June 2023 the landlord sent the resident an email outlining its findings in the ASB case. It said:
1. She had made it aware that she believed her neighbour was allowing people to reside there who should not be. It had investigated this and now considered the matter closed.
2. She had reported her neighbour talking about her and spreading “gossip” about her. This was “not antisocial behaviour as defined by [the landlord]’s policy” but it appreciated it was causing her concern.
3. It could offer mediation. Sitting down with her neighbour may help to find a way forward.
4. She had reported noise nuisance from her neighbour’s property. This appeared to be “people talking” which was “household living noise” and not ASB.
5. As the issue had “distressed her so greatly” it had put her on its waiting list for noise monitoring equipment. In the meantime she could use the Noise App.
6. It had met with the police regarding her case. They had advised there were “no grounds for harassment notices” and had agreed that installing noise monitoring equipment was a good way forward.
It is not clear why it took the landlord more than 6 weeks to provide its findings when requested by the resident. The evidence does not suggest that it was reasonably prevented from providing the resident with this information sooner.
The landlord’s conclusion that it would consider people talking to be normal household noise and not ASB was reasonable. Given that the resident described the neighbour making targeted comments about her and her family however, this could reasonably be considered to be antisocial. The landlord’s policy defines ‘nuisance’ as ASB. It specifically includes within this definition noise nuisance, neighbour disputes, and verbal abuse. The behaviour described by the resident would fit this definition.
The resident reported that she could hear the contents of her neighbour’s conversations and vice versa. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to have investigated whether there was excessive noise transference between the properties. If this was an issue it could then have considered whether it was proportionate to increase sound insulation. That it did not consider this possibility was a missed opportunity.
There was a delay between 7 July 2023 and 3 August 2023 caused by delays in the resident confirming her availability for the landlord to install the noise monitoring equipment. This was unfortunate but not within the landlord’s control. The landlord installed noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s property on 30 August 2023. Later that day it emailed her to check she was comfortable in using the equipment. This demonstrated that it was being supportive.
The landlord collected the noise monitoring equipment on 27 October 2023. It has advised this Service in response to a request for information that the resident only made 10 recordings in the 2 months the monitoring equipment was in situ. It said that it detected no noise in these recordings. The landlord has not provided this Service with the recordings.
The resident has advised this Service that she made numerous recordings with the equipment. She also states that she kept a written log of incidents as advised by the landlord. She said the landlord did not collect these logs when it collected the equipment.
In the absence of evidence supporting either account we are unable to determine what happened in this period and whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable. We would however have reasonably expected the landlord to have kept a more thorough record of the outcome of the noise monitoring period.
On 4 March 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident and said it was closing her ASB case. It said:
1. It had now reviewed all the noise recordings and had been in touch with the police.
2. There was no evidence to substantiate noise nuisance or harassment from her neighbour. It was therefore closing the case.
3. If she was dissatisfied with its handling of the case she could use its complaints process.
4. If she still required support to deal with the issue, she could apply for a community trigger (also known as ASB case review).
Overall, we accept that without evidence of ASB the landlord was unable to take action against the resident’s neighbour. However, we have found several failings in the landlord’s handling of the case. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. It left her for long periods with no update and she then had to invest unnecessary time and trouble chasing the landlord for responses to her contacts. There were also notable gaps in the landlord’s record keeping in this case. The landlord could reasonably have considered installing noise monitoring equipment sooner. It also missed the opportunity to consider whether there were issues in the sound insulation between the properties. We have therefore found maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

It may help to explain that it is not the purpose of this report to prove or disprove the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct. Rather, it is to consider whether the landlord’s response to her concerns was reasonable and proportionate.
On 3 June 2021 the resident raised concerns that her ASB officer was treating her unfairly. She said that the officer had issued her with a warning in 2019 when she had reportedly been abusive to a staff member and that this had impacted his decision not to log an ASB case.
The landlord tried to contact the resident by phone the following day but was unable to speak with her. It followed up by sending an email acknowledging her concerns and said it had escalated this to the appropriate team. This was reasonable. We have not seen evidence that the landlord requested any supporting evidence from the resident at this time nor asked for further detail of her concerns.
Internal landlord emails show that on 10 June 2021 the complaints team contacted the ASB officer and asked for their account in response to the resident’s concerns. The officer replied and provided a detailed account disputing the resident’s reports about their conduct.
We consider that the landlord carried out a reasonable investigation into the officer’s actions. In the absence of supporting evidence from the resident it was reasonable that it could not uphold her concerns.
On 15 June 2021 resident told the landlord, in response to an email from the complaint officer, that she was only willing to speak with a “certain demographic of person”.
On 20 August 2021 the landlord issued the resident with a warning regarding “language and comments” she had made in her correspondence with its staff. It described her comments as “inappropriate, aggressive, derogatory and unacceptable”. The landlord did not provide further details of the correspondence it referred to.
Based on the evidence we have seen, we consider that the landlord acted proportionately and in line with its unreasonable persistent complainant policy by issuing the resident a warning. It had an obligation to protect and support its staff. We would however have reasonably expected the landlord to provide specific and detailed information about which of the resident’s behaviours or language it considered to be unreasonable. Without this information the basis for its warning was not entirely clear.
On 5 October 2022 the resident telephoned the landlord. She said she wanted to make a complaint about the way the landlord had handled her ASB issues. She said she felt it had been “racist” in its approach and that it had not taken her concerns seriously. We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded to the resident. This was inappropriate.
On 30 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord in response to a communication about reports of ASB. She said that she was taking legal action against the landlord for “discrimination from its…staff”. She emailed again on 3 February 2023 and said she had received no response to her reports of the “racism” that she was experiencing.
The landlord issued another warning letter to the resident on 6 February 2023. The letter outlined examples of where it felt she had used “inappropriate language and tone”. The landlord said that the resident had said that its staff of a particular ethnicity were discriminating against her.
It was not unreasonable that the landlord wrote to the resident to address concerns regarding her behaviour. This was in line with its policy. We would also however have expected the landlord to respond directly to the resident’s concerns that staff were discriminating against her or treating her differently. That it did not do so was inappropriate.
On 14 June 2023 the landlord advised the resident that the customer experience team was handling her complaint. The resident responded and said that the officer who had emailed her was “not management”. She said she had told the landlord she did not want anyone of a particular ethnicity to contact her. She added that she would not them “bully” her as they were “racist”.
The following day the landlord issued the resident with a further warning letter. It said that her language the previous day had been “unacceptable” and warned that it would take further action if her behaviour continued. This was in line with its policy. We note however that the landlord failed again to respond to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct. The resident had advised that its staff were “bullying” her and being “racist”. This should have prompted further questioning and investigation by the landlord. That no action was taken was inappropriate.
The resident replied and said that her comments had not been racist. She said that all the team members were “all the same race” and that she had said many times she did not want to communicate with them. The resident said that by ignoring her requests the landlord was harassing her.
While the resident’s concerns are noted, it would have been inappropriate of the landlord to tell its staff from a particular ethnicity that they were not able to contact the resident. To do so would have constituted discriminatory behaviour on its part. The landlord therefore had to balance the resident’s concerns with its obligation to treat its staff fairly.
Overall, the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its policy when issuing warning letters to the resident regarding her language and behaviour. However, the evidence shows that the landlord has on several occasions failed to respond to the resident’s reports regarding the conduct of its staff. We therefore find maladministration in relation to this complaint.

Response to the resident’s request for a transfer.

In June 2023 we advised the landlord that the resident wanted it to transfer to her to another property as a resolution to her complaint. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that as the resident was “adequately housed” she was not eligible for a transfer. This was in line with its policy.
The landlord advised the resident that she could register with the local authority for rehousing or apply for a mutual exchange. That the landlord provided this advice was reasonable and proportionate.
The landlord also however recommended that the resident register and bid for properties on its portal. As it had already advised her that she was ineligible for a transfer, this advice was incorrect. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged that its advice to register and bid on its portal was incorrect. It apologised and offered compensation. This was reasonable and proportionate.
We acknowledge that the resident the resident’s wish to move due to the ASB issues she has reported. When dealing with ASB, there are a range of measures that a landlord can explore. Moving either party should be a last resort. Furthermore there is a shortage of social housing and that landlords have an obligation to effectively manage their available stock so that they prioritise those in most need. The landlord has acted in line with its policy and provided reasonable advice. We therefore find no maladministration in relation to its response to the resident’s request for a transfer.

Complaint handling

On 3 June 2021 the resident contacted the landlord via the complaints section of its website. She said she was unhappy as a member of its staff had “caused discord” between her and her neighbour and this had resulted in ASB. The landlord’s records show it tried to contact the resident by telephone on 4 June 2021 to clarify what her complaint was about but was unable to get through. It emailed her to confirm receipt of her complaint. This was reasonable and in line with its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
On 14 June 2021 the landlord emailed the resident and asked for further details about her complaint. The resident replied and said she was unhappy that the officer who had “threatened” her 2 years previously had then investigated her ASB reports.
It took the landlord 19 working days to provide its response to Complaint 1. This is almost double the timeframe outlined in the Code. We note that the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for this delay in its response. This was inappropriate. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the delay, apologise for the inconvenience and to provide some explanation as to why it had been unable to respond sooner. That the landlord did not take such steps was a missed opportunity.
The landlord’s response to Complaint 1 was thorough. It outlined the reports it had received and actions it had taken and explained why it had been unable to take any further action. This was reasonable and proportionate.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 July 2021. She said she had replied to the landlord’s stage 1 response to Complaint 1 10 days earlier but it had “ignored” her. She said the landlord was discriminating against her. This Service has not seen evidence of the resident’s previous attempt to contact the landlord. It is therefore unclear whether this was received by the landlord. However, we have not seen evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s email of 19 July 2021, which the evidence suggests it did receive. This was a clear request for her complaint to be escalated and that the landlord did not respond was inappropriate.
As she had not received a response, the resident telephoned the landlord 10 days later. She said that her ASB reports had been “downplayed” by the ASB officer and that the complaints team were not calling her back.
The landlord telephoned resident back on the same date. It confirmed the contents of the call by email. It said she had:
1. Not agreed with her ASB case being closed as the noise nuisance from the dog was ongoing.
2. Asked that an independent witness attend to evidence the noise nuisance rather than her recording it on the Noise App.
3. Felt the ASB officer’s notes did not reflect their actual conversations.
4. Raised “serious allegations” about the ASB officer’s conduct. These had been passed to his line manager. It would be unable to discuss this with her further due to data protection.
5. Requested a new ASB officer. It would not usually do this as officers were allocated to specific areas. It would however consider her request.
6. Said she had submitted Noise App recordings which did not appear on the app.

The landlord agreed to update the resident by 11 August 2021.

This service has seen no evidence that the landlord updated the resident as agreed. Nor did it log an escalation of Complaint 1 or provide a stage 2 response. This was inappropriate and caused avoidable damage to the tenant-landlord relationship.
The resident tried to raise a further complaint (Complaint 2) in October 2022. The landlord did not log this as a complaint. This was a failure to adhere to the Code and it its own policy. This was inappropriate and a complaint handling failure.
The resident asked the landlord to raise Complaint 3 on 3 February 2023. She said:
1. She wanted a manager to contact her.
2. It had done nothing to address the ASB she had been reporting.
3. She felt that “race played a part in the way [the landlord] dealt with [the ASB]”.
4. She had been “bullied and ignored by [its]…staff previously”.
5. She had tried to raise a complaint previously but the ASB officer had closed the complaint.
The following day the landlord closed the complaint and stated that the resident did not want to make a formal complaint and only wanted a call back from a senior manager. The landlord emailed the resident and said it had closed the complaint. We have not seen evidence that the resident responded.
We accept that the landlord has stated that the resident agreed with the it closing the complaint as she just wanted to speak with a manager. We note however that we have not seen confirmation that this was the case. The resident did however have the opportunity to respond to the landlord’s email and state that she did not want the complaint to be closed. She did not do so and it was therefore not unreasonable that the landlord considered her to be satisfied with it closing the case.
This Service asked the landlord to raise a further complaint in relation to the resident’s concerns about its handling of her reports of ASB on 8 June 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 response in line with the timeframes outlined in the Code and its own policy.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was thorough and reasonably addressed each of the issues raised by the resident. We note however that the landlord did not identify any of the ASB handling shortcomings identified by this Service. This was a missed opportunity to provide redress.
We note that within its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that the resident had wanted a manager to deal with her complaint. It said however that the complaints team had dealt with the complaint in line with its policy. This was reasonable and appropriate.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint the following day. She added that she felt that its staff had bullied her.
On 21 July 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and apologised that its stage 2 complaint response would be late. It advised it would provide its response by 24 July 2023 and would include an offer of £50 compensation for the delay. This was reasonable and proportionate.
The landlord reasonably addressed each of the resident’s issues of complaint in its final response letter. We note however that its evaluation of its ASB handling differed significantly from that of this Service. The landlord specifically said that it had kept in regular contact with the resident, this is inconsistent with our finding that it often ignored her communications. This was a further missed opportunity to provide redress for its failings and rebuild its relationship with the resident.
We note that while the landlord found no evidence to support the resident’s reports of bullying, it did offer her the opportunity to provide further evidence. This was reasonable and proportionate.
Overall, the landlord:
1. Delayed in responding to Complaint 1. It then failed to acknowledge or apologise for this delay.
2. Failed to provide a stage 2 response to Complaint 1.
3. Failed to raise Complaint 2 as a complaint.
4. Missed the opportunity to identify and acknowledge failings in its ASB handling, and to put things right.
We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a transfer.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 working days of the date of this report:
1. A senior officer of the landlord must contact the resident in person (by telephone or visit) to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. The landlord must pay the resident £650 compensation comprising:
  1. £400 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. £250 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience in relation to its complaint handling.
  3. The amount ordered is in addition to the £100 previously offered by the landlord in its complaint responses.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must investigate the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct. A senior manager should complete the investigation. It should then provide the results of its investigation to this Service and the resident. We accept that the landlord will be unable to share some details with the resident due to GDPR. It should however provide reasonable and proportionate information to satisfy her that it has completed a thorough investigation.
Unless it can demonstrate that it has done so within the last 6 months, within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to conduct training to all staff involved in complaint handling. The training should explain:
1. The requirements of the Code.
2. Learning from this case.