Places for People Group Limited (202315481)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315481

Places for People Group Limited

20 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding its supported living accommodation residents being vetted, checked on, and provided with support.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is the shared owner of the property, which is an end of terrace house. The landlord is a housing association. The complaint relates to a neighbour (the neighbour) who lived directly opposite the resident in a block of flats, which is also owned by the landlord and let as supported living accommodation.
On 19 December 2022 the landlord served a Notice to Quit on the neighbour for reasons unrelated to the complaint. It obtained an Order for Possession against the neighbour from the county court on 4 April 2023. The police emailed the landlord on 22 April 2023 and said they had been called to the neighbour’s flat following reports of ASB. The resident reported the incident to the landlord on 24 April 2024 and said the neighbour had been throwing items from his window, had started a fire in the street, and had a confrontation with another neighbour. The landlord tried to call the neighbour and sent him a text message. The same day it also applied for a bailiff warrant to evict him. In an internal email, it said it had contacted the neighbour’s previous landlord, who said the neighbour had no history of causing ASB.
On 26 April 2023 the landlord’s records say the police had attended the neighbour’s flat several times. It called the mental health crisis team, who told it that they could only accept a referral from the police. It noted that it had tried to contact the neighbour several times and would have staff more present at the block. On 28 April 2023 the resident reported that the neighbour had come to her front door and had posted a letter. The landlord said it thought the letter was in Arabic and said it would look into this. The neighbour started a fire in his flat on 2 May 2023. The fire brigade and the police attended, and the neighbour was arrested. The landlord’s records say it asked the police not to allow the neighbour to return to the flat if placed on bail.
Between 4 and 5 May 2023, the resident and the landlord exchanged emails about the ASB incidents. The resident explained how stressed, anxious, and fearful the situation had made her. The landlord apologised for the distress caused and said it was working with partner agencies to respond to the situation. It confirmed only the police had the power to remove someone, but it could confirm the neighbour would not be returning, and it had secured his front door to prevent re-entry. The resident emailed it to make a complaint, however, the member of staff she emailed was on leave. She emailed the landlord again on 11 May 2023 to make a stage 1 complaint, which was about:
1. Having had to call the landlord and police several times due to the ASB.
2. Feeling like a prisoner in the property, due to living alone and being fearful of the neighbour. She had to use her rear door and park her car elsewhere out of fear.
3. The landlord not having seen the previous signs of an issue with the neighbour, including when he previously smashed his windows.
4. The landlord not having fitted the secure door when it said it would.
The landlord confirmed it had raised the stage 1 complaint on 15 May 2023. It, along with a county court bailiff, took back possession of the neighbour’s flat on 25 May 2023. The following day it called and emailed the resident to acknowledge her complaint. It provided its stage 1 response on 8 June 2023, in which it:
1. Partially upheld the complaint, as it had not called her back when it said it would on 20 April 2023, and it apologised for this. It said it did, however, visit her to discuss her concerns. It also said it had not installed the security door when it said it would and apologised for the delay.
2. Confirmed it had been working with partner agencies such as the police to achieve an outcome, as the neighbour had been “displaying complex behaviours”.
3. Said it had looked into the letter she had received, which it believed to be in Arabic, but that it was illegible.
4. Explained it had tried to resolve the situation within the law and process it had to follow and confirmed the neighbour would not be returning.
5. Offered £50 for its missed callback and delay in installing the security door.
On 11 June 2023 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said the landlord had not considered how much the situation had affected her mental health. She questioned why the neighbour had been allowed to move in and why it had not been monitoring him. The landlord called and emailed the resident on 14 June 2023 to acknowledge the escalation. It provided its stage 2 response on 26 June 2023, in which it:
1. Did not uphold the complaint, as it said it had not found any further service failures in addition to those at stage 1, for which it had apologised and offered compensation.
2. Said it had acted appropriately and with her welfare in mind and explained the timescales involved in achieving an eviction.
3. Confirmed it completed vetting and risk assessments on all residents before offering properties.
4. Regarding the letter said it had no further information and was not responsible for what individuals wrote.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that she is concerned about further ASB from different residents of the block. She does not believe the landlord is managing the block properly and she has lost trust and confidence in it.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

When the resident reported ASB to the landlord in April 2023, it spoke to her about the situation in line with its ASB policy. Its handling of the call was poor, as it ended the call with a promised call back which did not take place. It did, however, visit the resident the same day to discuss her concerns.
By the date the neighbour started to commit ASB, which was reported to the police and the landlord, the landlord had already obtained an Order for Possession against the neighbour. Therefore, it was reasonable for it not to open an ASB case for the neighbour when he would soon no longer be living in one of its properties and it could take no further action. It did try to speak to the neighbour in line with its policy. It also worked with the police, who took the lead when a crime was committed, and the crisis team in line with its policy in April to May 2023. However, there were no other options available to it, as it had already obtained the most serious sanction. While the evidence shows it wanted to take back the property as soon as possible, this was beyond its control, as it had to wait for the county court bailiff. The landlord had applied for eviction as soon as it was able, which was positive.
Once the neighbour had been arrested in May 2023, and the landlord understood he would not return, it told the resident. It also arranged to secure the neighbour’s flat with a security door, but there was a day’s delay in doing so. Its communication with the resident was prompt, as it responded to her on the next day, and it provided detailed replies, explaining its actions and the limitations of what it could do and say, which was appropriate. However, it should have replied to her regarding the letter in Arabic once it realised it was illegible, and not doing so was a failing.
The landlord accepted in June 2023 within its stage 1 response, which it confirmed in its stage 2 response, that it had failed in its initial call and in securing the door. It apologised and offered £50 compensation to the resident for this. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
Within its stage 2 response, the landlord said, “Mental health issues in the community are not uncommon nowadays and need to be handled with care and consideration for all parties involved”. While the Ombudsman is sympathetic of the concerns the resident raised, and the genuine anxiety and fear the situation caused, there was no more the landlord could have done in the circumstances. While it did apologise and offer compensation for its self-identified failings, it did not accept its failing in how it handled the letter. It was clear that this had caused the resident distress, and a fear she was being targeted, and so the landlord should have contacted her as soon as it discovered the letter it agreed to look into in April 2023 was illegible, instead of waiting until its June 2023 stage 1 response to tell her this.
Overall, there was service failure, which caused distress to the resident. To reflect the impact an order has been made that the landlord pay her £100 compensation, which is inclusive of its offer at stage 1. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for delays in getting matters resolved resulting in distress and inconvenience, which the landlord did not fully put right.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding its supported living accommodation residents being vetted, checked on, and provided with support

The landlord’s aims of the service document for the neighbour’s supported accommodation states the block opposite the property provides shared temporary accommodation for people with low support needs. It says it has the right to inspect residents’ rooms at any time to complete health and safety checks. It also says, as residents are issued with licence agreements, it can serve a Notice to Quit if it needs them to leave.
As part of her June 2023 escalation request, the resident said she did not believe the landlord had vetted or checked on the neighbour, which had led to the ASB or caused a delay in the landlord being able to react to it. In its stage 2 response in the same month, it confirmed that it did vet all incoming residents. This is in line with its lettings policy, which says it will check the eligibility and suitability of the person for a property.
The landlord has not provided evidence that it vetted the neighbour before letting. However, it has provided evidence that it completed a check as part of a risk assessment, and that the neighbour had not committed ASB previously before becoming its resident. The landlord has provided evidence of its management of the neighbour’s licence. It took appropriate action in line with its aims of service when it became concerned, followed the correct legal process, and ultimately evicted the neighbour. There was no maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

When the resident made her stage 1 complaint on 11 May 2023 the landlord confirmed it had raised it within 3 working days on 15 May 2023. This meant it had acknowledged it within its complaints policy’s 5 working day timeframe. However, it acknowledged it again on 26 May 2023 and did not provide its response until 8 June 2023, which was 19 working days after the resident had made the complaint. This was in breach of its 10 working day complaints policy timeframe, and in breach of paragraph 5.1 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s 11 June 2023 escalation within its 3 working day policy timeframe on 14 June 2023. It provided its stage 2 response within its 20 working day policy timeframe and in compliance with the Code. However, it failed to recognise its stage 1 response delay, which was a further failing.
There was service failure in complaint handling, which caused additional time and inconvenience for the resident. To reflect this an order has been made that the landlord pay £50 compensation, which is in line with our guidance on remedies for low level service failure.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Complaint handling.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding its supported living accommodation residents being vetted, checked on, and provided with support.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the service failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident £150 compensation made up of:
  1. £100 (inclusive of its stage 1 offer) for the distress, caused by its failings in handling her reports of ASB.
  2. £50 for the additional time and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failing.