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

Midland Heart Limited (202301132)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301132

Midland Heart Limited

3 February 2025


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 antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a flat owned by the landlord.
  2. In April 2023, this Service received correspondence from a representative of the resident’s member of parliament (MP) concerning the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB. We contacted the landlord in December 2023 and asked it to consider matters under its internal complaint procedure.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 January 2024. It summarised recent events and said it was unable to identify that it did not handle the resident’s ASB concerns appropriately.
  4. The resident requested the escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 30 May 2024, stating she felt the landlord failed in its duty of care to her.
  5. On 18 July 2024, the landlord responded at stage 2. While it did not identify shortcomings in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports, it recognised the challenges she experienced as the only female residing in its housing scheme. It confirmed it would help her to move by making a direct offer of an alternative property. It identified failings in its complaint handling and offered her £2000 compensation.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and referred the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident was concerned about the impact the ASB had on her health. She also believed this impacted her employment and earning potential. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, the courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, her concerns about the health impact of the issues are better dealt with via the court.
  2. We understand there were historical reports of ASB concerning the resident and her neighbours between 2018 and 2022. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about its handling of her reports, completed its internal complaints procedure, or referred the matter to this Service. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happen.
  3. Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme (that was applicable at the time of the resident’s complaint) states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which the resident did not bring to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising. Taking this into account, and the availability and reliability of evidence, we have focused on her more recent reports of ASB from March 2023, which this complaint relates to.
  4. Following the landlord’s stage 2 response, the resident told this Service she was unhappy with how long it took to receive a direct offer of a property from the landlord. Additionally, she said the landlord had discussed waiving rent arrears for her current address and installing new floor coverings in the new property. However, this had not been formalised. While these matters follow on from her previous complaint, the landlord needs an opportunity to investigate and respond under its internal complaint procedure, should the resident want to make a further complaint. This is in line with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme.

Reports of ASB

  1. When assessing complaints about the landlord’s handling of ASB, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has adequately investigated the reported issues and taken appropriate and proportionate action, in line with its policies, procedures, and relevant legislation. We will not investigate the alleged ASB itself.
  2. The Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 defines ASB as conduct which:
    1. Has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person.
    2. Is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
    3. Is capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
  3. In summary, the landlord’s ASB policy says it:
    1. Aims to investigate complaints of ASB as efficiently as possible, and in an impartial and professional manner.
    2. Will ensure it takes reasonable and proportionate action to mitigate the risk of harm.
    3. Will conduct an initial risk assessment.
    4. Will agree clear actions with the resident on how it will tackle the case.
    5. Will use a wide variety of methods to tackle the ASB, which, in most circumstances, will involve speaking to the subject of the complaint.
    6. Will close a case when:
      1. It has taken all available action to resolve the matter.
      2. The complainant fails to assist in providing evidence and it cannot take any further action without their assistance.
      3. No evidence exists or has been provided to prove the incidents of ASB have occurred.
  4. Following the resident’s report of a verbal altercation on 29 March 2023, the landlord acted reasonably by opening an ASB case, completing a risk assessment, writing to the alleged perpetrator, contacting the resident to ask for more information, setting out an action plan, and making enquiries with the police, and contacting a contractor who witnessed the event. These actions were appropriate in the circumstances.
  5. The resident made a further report to the landlord on 12 April 2023 concerning allegations of a neighbour damaging her letterbox. It arranged to visit the resident with the police on 20 April 2023 and provided access to an out of hours security group so she could report incidents of ASB between 6pm and 6am and have an operative attend. In the Ombudsman’s view, the actions above demonstrate it took her concerns seriously and responded proportionally.
  6. Throughout April and May 2023, the landlord’s records show it communicated with the police about the issues reported, made enquiries with neighbours, and inspected the communal areas on 2 occasions. Additionally, it attempted to contact the resident several times, updated its action plan, and offered to extend her access to the out of hours security company. In taking these actions, the Ombudsman finds it acted in line with its policy.
  7. Records show the landlord spoke to the resident and police on 9 June 2023. The resident confirmed she had not yet provided a statement to the police concerning the incidents and there were no further issues to report. In the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to follow up with the resident to understand the current position.
  8. The resident left the landlord a voicemail on 20 June 2023 reporting concerns about her neighbour arguing outside of the home with an alleged sex worker. She also said she found a blade on a communal balcony. A week later, she reported a group of men loitering outside the property. The landlord responded appropriately by updating its action plan, asking the resident to provide evidence, and offering to arrange out of hours security patrols to function as an independent witness. Furthermore, it completed an inspection of the communal areas and contacted the police about her report of a bladed weapon. It also arranged for its lettings team to explain the different options available to her if she wanted to move. It presented this information in a straightforward way. These actions are what we would reasonably expect from a landlord in view of the allegations.
  9. The resident refused to send the landlord the photos she took of the men loitering outside as she was concerned it may put her in danger. The Ombudsman finds the landlord responded appropriately here by empathising with her, explaining why it needed evidence, and reassuring her that any evidence provided would remain anonymised. Further, the landlord said it aimed to visit the neighbour with the police and sent the resident an updated action plan. This was in line with its policy.
  10. In July 2023, the resident told the landlord she wanted the landlord to move her to a different property as she felt her life was under threat. Records show it contacted the police to establish whether they considered there was a risk to her life. This was appropriate in the circumstances. As the police did not agree there was a threat to the resident’s life and determined no offence had taken place, it was reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident to the housing options previously provided by its lettings team.
  11. In August 2023, the landlord told the resident it had received evidence of her neighbour getting out of a car with a female and the rear fence coming apart at the joint. It arranged for a repair to the communal fence. The landlord’s call notes state the resident said she had a video of her neighbour collecting drugs from a car. The landlord updated the action plan, asked the resident to provide said evidence, and followed up with the police. It asked the police if they would jointly visit the neighbour with it. In view of the above, the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord continued to act in line with its ASB policy.
  12. The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 August 2023 following a case review. It explained that there was no evidence of ASB since the verbal altercation with her neighbour in March 2023. It said it:
    1. Sent a warning letter and visited her neighbour.
    2. Visited her at her home.
    3. Consulted with the police.
    4. Conducted regular checks of the communal areas.
    5. Used a security company to patrol after hours and gave the resident the password to use them.
    6. Provided housing advice.
    7. Arranged money advice support.
    8. Monitored the case for 5 months.
  13. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s letter dated 23 August 2023 clearly set out its position to the resident in a clear, fair, and appropriate way. Its reasons for closing the ASB case were in line with its policy.
  14. In October 2023, records show the resident made further contact with the landlord with more concerns about her neighbours. The landlord asked her to provide specific information about any new incidents, including supporting evidence. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds it was acceptable for the landlord to request this information so it could understand what had occurred and it could decide an appropriate course of action.
  15.  The landlord opened a further ASB case following the resident’s report on 27 January 2024 about damaged fencing, issues with a house of multiple occupation next door, further allegations of sex-work, and attempts of people trying to access her property via her bedroom door. She said she had recordings of the issues and had reported matters to the police.
  16. The landlord’s records show it made multiple attempts to contact the resident between January 2024 and June 2024 to discuss the ASB she had reported. It also completed a risk assessment and an action plan, in accordance with its ASB policy. Information provided to the Ombudsman indicates the resident refused a home visit and did not provide evidence or specific information about the ASB she was experiencing, such as the date, time, specific nature of the issue, and the alleged perpetrator.
  17. While it is a fundamental part of the Ombudsman’s role to consider whether a landlord has acted appropriately, this will often necessitate consideration of how the resident’s actions may have contributed to the situation. Rather than demonstrating bias in favour of the landlord, this is an example of the Ombudsman’s independent and impartial role in practice, as this Service considers the actions of both parties and the impact on the substantive issue.
  18. The Ombudsman is not questioning the reasons why the resident did not engage with the landlord in terms of providing the information it requested regarding the incidents. However, the landlord would not typically be responsible for the delays or impact caused in this instance. From the evidence available, we are satisfied it made reasonable attempts to investigate her reports of ASB during the above period.
  19. While this Service has not identified failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, we recognise that within its final complaint response, it agreed to move her via a direct offer of accommodation. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord acted pragmatically to use its discretion under its allocations policy in view of the issues she had been experiencing over the years, the challenges evidencing ASB, and the mental and emotional impact on her. Additionally, it agreed to put a stop on taking further action regarding the resident’s rent arrears so it could assess her financial circumstances and agree how best it could support her in the future. This demonstrates a willingness on by the landlord to resolve matters long term and improve the landlord/tenant relationship.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies that a stage 1 response should be issued in 10 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with no more than a further extension of 10 days. A stage 2 response should be issued within 20 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with a further extension of 20 days if required. A landlord should not exceed these timescales without good reason.
  2. The Code defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents. The Code sets out that a resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for the landlord to treat it as such. The landlord must handle a complaint submitted via a third party or representative in line with its complaint policy.
  3. In this case, neither party submitted a copy of a complaint made by the resident to this Service. However, we recognise the resident has been consulting with her MP’s office for a significant period regarding her experiences living in the property and there has been frequent communication with the landlord over the issues. It is not clear from the evidence available when the landlord ought to have reasonably recorded a complaint. As such, this Service contacted it in December 2023 asking it to respond formally via its internal complaint procedure.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 January 2024, 14 working days after our initial request for action. The Ombudsman recognises that the stage 1 response gave the resident 14 working days to request an escalation of her complaint if she did not agree with its response. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that she did so. The MP’s office contacted this Service to explain the reason for the delay was that the resident did not receive the stage 1 response.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 30 May 2024. Additionally, the landlord confirmed the MP’s office requested an escalation on 4 June 2024. The landlord acted appropriately in the circumstances by reopening the complaint. It responded at stage 2 on 18 July 2024. The Ombudsman notes this was slightly outside of the timescales set out in the Code.
  6. Within the landlord’s final complaint response, it identified that it failed to meet the standards set out in its complaints policy. It recognised this had a bigger impact on the resident due to the experiences she was having at home. It said it ought to have escalated her complaint in April 2024 when she asked a staff member to liaise with the complaints team and wanted a manager to review the complaint. It is positive to see that the landlord reflected on the resident’s experience and identified its own shortcomings.
  7. Under the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, it is good practice for a landlord to evidence learning from a complaint. We expect a landlord to identify clear learning points and outline specific actions to ensure similar service failures will not occur in the future. While the landlord recognised failings, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it could have done more to reference specific learning from the resident’s experience within its complaint responses to improve its complaint handling.
  8. When there are failings identified by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the resolution offered put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In assessing this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  9. The landlord’s final complaint response recognised its shortcomings in its handling of the resident’s complaint and offered compensation of £2000. She explained to this Service that she feels the compensation does not truly recognise her experience of living in the property over the years and the impact on her life. We would not order a landlord to pay compensation to recognise the impact of another resident’s alleged behaviour. Any award is to recognise the impact of a landlord’s failures.
  10. Our remedies guidance (available on our website) suggests an award in the range of £100 to £600 for failings which adversely affected a resident with no permanent impact. In this case, we found the landlord acted appropriately to her reports of ASB. The shortcomings identified relate to the landlord’s complaint handling only, as highlighted above. We have not seen evidence to show that the complaint handling failures had a significant or severe long-term impact on the resident.
  11. The Ombudsman is minded that the £2000 compensation offered by the landlord far exceeds the amount we would recommend under our guidance for the complaint handling failings identified. We are aware that the landlord has not specifically defined the period which its compensation offer relates to. For clarity, this determination relates to the period defined in paragraph 10 only.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its complaint handling satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £2000 previously offered for its handling of the complaint.