Platform Housing Group Limited (202113007)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113007

Platform Housing Group Limited

6 September 2022

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be moved as a result of the ASB.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints through its internal complaints system.

Background and summary of events

Policies and Procedures

The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure, the Formal Complaints stage, whereby an office not involved in the case investigates and the Final Review stage which is conducted by a Senior Manager.
1. Prior to 4 December 2020, the Complaints Procedure stated that at both stages, the landlord aims to send the written response within 15 working days.
2. After 4 December 2020, at Stage 1 the landlord aims to respond within 10 working days unless it requires more time in which case it will keep the resident informed of the progress. At Stage 2 it aims to respond in writing within 20 working days.
The Landlord’s Lettings Policy states that “There may be other occasions where exceptional circumstances create the need for urgently rehousing an existing customer, i.e. domestic abuse, racial abuse, threat to life or serious risk of harm. These ‘management moves’ will be considered on a case-by-case basis, will require the authorisation of a Regional Manager and may need the agreement of the local authority. The approved ‘management move’ applicant will receive up to two reasonable offers and will remain valid for a period of up to three months”.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that:
1. “The Group believes there must be a balance between preventative measures, early intervention and enforcement. The Group is committed to the appropriate use of mediation and low-level interventions and firmly believe this should always be looked at as the first stage in any complaint where appropriate.
2. The Group will deal with low level incidents of ASB quickly and sensitively as early intervention may avoid escalation. The Group will ensure its response to each individual case will be proportionate and reasonable to the level of ASB being perpetrated and will take account of the wishes of the complainant”.

Summary of Events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, and her property is a ground floor flat in a block. She has raised reports about the alleged behaviour of three neighbours in particular, Neighbour A, Neighbour B, and Neighbour C. The landlord’s timeline of events indicate that previously it had received intermittent report from the resident: On 2 December 2017 the resident reported neighbour A parked in her parking space and had dropped sweet wrappers outside her front door; on 15 October 2018 the resident reported that neighbour B was pressing her door buzzer; on 21 January 2019 the resident reported noise from neighbour C in the early hours and requested diary sheets; on 3 May 2019 the resident advised that a neighbour was throwing cigarette butts towards her mat and on 24 June 2019, she advised of an incident where neighbour B shouted and caused banging noises in the early hours.
On 27 May 2020, the resident alleged that neighbour A had put chocolate on her window and windowsill, and noted that she had experienced previous ASB incidents with this tenant. The landlord offered to speak to the neighbour but made clear that if the resident did not see her or anyone put chocolate on her window, it could not take further action.
On 12 June 2020, the landlord held a meeting with the resident’s Social Worker and according to its notes, they agreed to “work together to try and help [the resident] with regards her previous complaints and expectation on social living”. However, no further actions were taken.
On 30 June 2020, the landlord sent the block a letter about communal areas. This included asking residents to keep noise to a minimum to respect other residents within the block, not slamming or banging shut communal doors and putting out all cigarette ends correctly and disposing then in a bin.
On 31 July 2020, the landlord received diary sheets but did not take action as it believed the reports did not meet the threshold for ASB.
On 8 August 2020 the resident reported an altercation after neighbour C installed a tent in a communal space that she considered to be too close to her property. She also stated that there were cigarette butts outside her window and residents were parking in her parking space.
On 16 September 2020, the resident submitted a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports describing how neighbour B played loud music, screamed and swore, banged, slammed doors and scraped furniture across the floor, as well as throwing cigarette butts which landed on her bedroom windowsill and outside her patio doors. She described how neighbour B intimidated her and how neighbour A intimidated her also and placed sweet wrappers and chewing gum outside her property. The resident also stated that neighbour C had been aggressive and abusive towards her, mentioning the altercation over the tent on 8 August 2020. The resident contended that the landlord (and the police) were not taking responsibility or adhering to their policies and procedures and referred the landlord to diary sheets and other information she had sent.
On 19 October 2020 the landlord responded to the complaint apologising for the late response. It noted reports from the resident heightened in 2020 and that it had sent two newsletters to residents, one about parking and the other addressing a range of communal issues. It stated it could only take more specific action of address issues with specific individuals when appropriate, substantial evidence is provided.
On 3 November 2020 the resident escalated her formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports regarding “leaving the external communal door open, slamming doors, parking in my parking space, and littering cigarette butts and papers on my property”, and noting that she had difficulties with her neighbours since 2015. She raised several points that she wanted the landlord to respond to in its complaint response.
In emails sent on 25 November 2020 and 3 December 2020, the resident advised that she would be getting a new advocate and would like to postpone a telephone call to discuss her complaint until she was allocated a new advocate. The landlord confirmed it would review the historic issues of complaint but would not finalise the response until after it had spoken to her.
On 12 and 13 December 2020 the resident sent several emails to the landlord requesting that the landlord stop neighbours B and C from throwing rubbish from their windows. She stated that she had logged a stalking and harassment case with the police and provided a police number. She stated however that she did not want the housing officer to contact her.
On 20 December 2020 the resident had an altercation with neighbour C and reported a physical assault to the police.
On 6 January 2021, the landlord checked if the resident had been allocated a new advocate so it could proceed with investigating her complaint.
On 3 February 2021, after the easing of lockdown restrictions, the landlord had a case review meeting in person with resident at her home to discuss ongoing incidents. On 8 February 2021 it sent a letter confirming the outcome of the meeting. It confirmed:
1. An agreement to speak to alleged perpetrators by phone about incidents reported, and that spitting and littering was unacceptable; however, it noted that given the issues raised, there was insufficient evident to support legal action.
2. It was for the police to investigate the alleged assault of 20 December 2020, and the police had taken no further action due to the lack of evidence and independent witnesses. However, it would discuss the incident with the alleged perpetrator.
3. It had requested support from local mental health and wellbeing teams.
4. It had offered mediation which had been agreed with by other residents but not by the resident.
5. It accepted the resident’s installation of CCTV if she abided by General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) rules.
6. Whilst the resident felt threatened and upset by residents walking past her door, she lived in a communal building where residents had a certain amount of free living and movement. It suggested the resident kept her distance from and did not contact the alleged perpetrators.
Prior to the meeting the landlord wrote to the local authority to ascertain whether any support agencies or social worker could assist the resident.
The landlord has provided evidence that it interviewed and wrote to the resident’s neighbours about her reports, ascertaining why there had been instances of spitting and gaining agreement for it to stop. It also received counter-allegations about the resident’s behaviour. It asked the police to re-investigate the incident of 20 December 2020. It then informed the resident of the action it had taken.
On 12 February 2021 the landlord asked the resident if she would like to proceed with a meeting with her advocate to discuss her complaint having received the report from the meeting of 3 February 2021. The resident stated that she was not happy with some aspects of the report would advise further when she and the advocate would be available.
The resident postponed phone calls scheduled for 19 March 2021 and 14 April 2021 to discuss her formal complaint. On 19 March 2021 the landlord advised the resident that neighbour A had moved out.
On 6 May 2021 after the resident sent further photographs the landlord advised that it could not see anything that looked like ash or spit in the pictures, and that there was no evidence that anyone had placed a small amount of green buds and leaves by her patio door, with windy weather the probable cause. It advised “Issues of people walking by your door, dirt, a single piece of gum, or grass debris on your patio are simply not breaches of tenancy and we cannot act on them”. The landlord confirmed that it would address issues that were a tenancy breach and that it would reoffer mediation. On 11 May 2021 the landlord asked the local authority whether it could make any referrals to assist the resident.
On 25 May 2021 the landlord sent the final response to the complaint, making reference to having spoken to the resident and another person by phone on 4 May 2022. It stated:
1. As of the date of the complaint escalation, it did not appear that any of the reports made were criminal matters, therefore there was no need to liaise with the police at that time. The incidents raised were low level nuisance and living in a shared environment with other residents some noise and general differences of lifestyle could be expected and would be experienced. It reiterated the advice of 3 February 2021 that there was no longer any reason for the resident to complete diary sheets.
2. It had taken appropriate action when issues had been reported to it. When reports had been made and there was no clear perpetrator it had tried to provide advice and guidance to customers in the block about what it considered to be reasonable and acceptable behaviour.
3. It explained that “Substantial evidence” is information provided by a number of different complainants that can specifically identify a perpetrator(s) and the specific action(s) they have undertaken to intentionally cause Antisocial Behaviour or nuisance.
4. It had responded to emails and telephone calls in a timely manner. It apologised if the resident felt colleagues had not dealt with complaints as she would have liked.
In response to questions raised at the phone meeting of 4 May 2021, the landlord stated:
1. It had manged the case appropriately and responded in a timely manner to the resident’s communications, aside from the incident of a customer spitting off the balcony, when the neighbour should have been spoken to immediately. However, when investigating the complaint, it identified this shortfall and spoke to the neighbour concerned who admitted to the incident and stopped further incidents.
2. It would not offer compensation for damage to the resident’s property as there was insufficient evidence to show how the damage had been caused. It noted that it had liaised with the police about the report of “criminal damage” to her post box and gas pipe 20 December 2020, but the resident had provided no supporting evidence and the police was taking no further action.
3. It was sorry that the resident’s health had deteriorated since moving to the property but due to the lack of substantive evidence regarding the resident’s allegations it would not take enforcement action that would make her feel safer. Its offer of mediation remained.
4. It would offer a managed move to another property and would contribute to the cost of removals. It would try to find an accommodation in an area the resident had chosen with no communal areas and non-shared front and rear door but this would limit the availability of properties.
5. With regards to the resident’s request for a reinvestigation of the alleged assault, it had already reviewed all the available evidence into the alleged assault and alleged hate crime in conjunction with the police and the current position with the police is that no further criminal investigations will take place.

After the Complaints Procedure

The resident activated the Community Trigger with an initial multiagency meeting which included the police held on 16 June 2021. On 9 July 2021, after it received a further email from the resident about previous allegations, the landlord advised that the Community Trigger meeting had found no failings on its behalf. It noted that it had found the block to be clean and tidy at an inspection on 22 June 2021 and advised that it had ascertained that previous incidents of spitting had been carried out by a neighbour’s child who had learning and behavioural issues. It stated it would not investigate historic incidents, but the resident could phone it if a new incident met the threshold for a tenancy breach.
The landlord’s internal correspondence noted that the resident was posting newspaper articles throughout her block about other residents which compromised their “privacy and personal safety”. On 5 August 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident limiting her contact to once weekly due to “excessive contact”. It explained that she was reporting 2-4 times a week issues that were not ASB and did not meet the threshold for actions, such as cigarette butts outside the building debris and mess on the windows of her flat. It noted that the resident repeatedly referred to the incident of 20 December 2020 that was closed down. The landlord also noted that despite its advice to stay away from other residents, she was persisting in sending texts and messages alleging serious crimes which was inciting upset and distress.
On 31 January 2022, the landlord attended a multiagency meeting which was also attended by support agencies working with the resident.
1. The landlord noted that resident’s CCTV was “being abused” as there was now filming in public areas. It noted the resident’s complaint derived from historic issues or her perception of litter as ASB and that mediation had been offered, and that there had been two safeguarding referrals. It further noted the resident had posted social media content under people’s doors.
2. The landlord noted that a bungalow had been offered and that the resident’s support worker would inform the resident that the offer of a bungalow in one of the 60 authorities it had housing in was still open. The landlord also asked the support agency to write a letter to support the resident’s application for housing with the local authority and to convey that external mediation still available.
3. The landlord noted that the police had investigated an altercation between the resident and a neighbour on 20 December 2020 but had closed this down and had received no reports or recorded incidents since.
4. In conclusion “The group felt that the allocation of a social worker was positive, as was the involvement of [a support agency] … [The resident] needs to accept the help and support and now consider the options to resolve this matter with a move or mediation”.
The landlord has advised this Service that the resident has requested accommodation in two specific areas of the city where it does not have properties, but its offer of a management move remains.
The resident raised another formal complaint and in its final response of 24 March 2022, the landlord noted the resident had again raised historical incidents which would be considered by the pending investigation of this Service; however, the resident could report further incidents of littering and spitting which would be investigated and actioned proportionately. It reiterated that it had agreed a management transfer although the resident’s preferences made a transfer unlikely. In response to the resident complaining about the landlord forcing her to remove her camera, it stated as the camera potentially captured residents outside the boundary of her property, it was important to remind her of her responsibilities under GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

The resident has advised this Service of her reports to the landlord and in particular her belief that two other residents are spitting on her patio. It is important to reiterate at the outset that it is not the role of this Service to investigate incidents themselves and identify perpetrators as that was a judgement which fell to the landlord to determine. It must also be recognised that responsibility for any ASB lies with the perpetrator, not the landlord and it is not for the landlord to manage individual resident’s behaviours on a daily basis. The landlord, however, has responsibility to ensure that it takes appropriate and proportionate action to address and seek to resolve reported ASB, and that it has adequate and effective procedures in place for doing so.
It should also be noted that a resolution which suits all parties may not be possible in cases where there are lifestyle differences or personality clashes, resulting in neighbour disputes rather than ASB, for example. In such situations, it is the responsibility of residents themselves to resolve these and/or to find a way to live together with minimal impact of any mutual dislike.
Upon receiving reports of alleged ASB a landlord first needs to gather evidence to establish whether the behaviour is unreasonable and constitutes ASB. Its procedures must also ensure that it remains impartial and does not seek to apportion responsibility for behaviour until it has established the facts. It is therefore important that a landlord has in place procedures to ensure reports of ASB are appropriately and effectively responded to. The landlord’s policy allowed for the prioritisation of reports and provided a number of measures that could be taken either in isolation or in conjunction, depending on the severity and urgency of the reports. Embedded within the procedure was the need for engagement and liaison with partner agencies, including the police. In investigating this complaint, the Ombudsman must therefore consider whether the landlord followed its own procedure in response to the reported ASB.
Prior to writing to all residents in the block in June 2020 the reports received by the landlord from the resident were intermittent and concerned relatively low-level incidents. As such, it was reasonable and in line with its preventative approach to dealing with ASB that it wrote to residents to be more considerate and live in a more neighbourly way. It made reference to specific issues that the resident had raised, such a littering and banging noises, indicating its intention to resolve particular issues she had reported at that time.
The landlord has offered mediation which is an option in line with its ASB policy. Mediation is a reasonable option to explore in cases where there are low level neighbour problems where legal action is not feasible. It allows the parties to understand the experiences and views of the other party and arrive at an agreement to live in a more amicable way.
The resident reported further incidents in December 2020. The landlord took appropriate action to review her ongoing ASB case and determine how it should intervene by interviewing her on 3 February 2021. It then communicated its action plan in its letter of 8 February 2021 thereby making clear what action it would and would not take to resolve the concerns that the resident had raised.
The alleged assault by neighbour C of 20 December 2020 was a particular concern to the resident. It was the responsibility of the police to determine whether an assault or other crime had taken place. Given that the landlord received no notification that that Neighbour C committed any offence, the landlord’s offer to raise the incident with the neighbour was reasonable and sufficient.
The landlord also took steps to manage the resident’s expectations about other issues concerning her such as other residents walking past her door. Whilst this Service appreciates that the resident may feel uncomfortable with other residents walking past her property, this is not a tenancy breach and therefore a matter that the landlord could reasonably be expected to seek to prevent. As such it was reasonable that the landlord sought to manage her expectations on this issue, in particular explaining that she lived in a block with communal spaces.
After the meeting of 3 February 2020, the landlord allowed the resident to install CCTV which was reasonable as this provided her a degree of security. It was also reasonable that the landlord later reminded the resident to ensure her camera did not film outside the boundary of her property, not only because of her responsibility to comply with GPDR and the Data Protection Act 2018 but also because any filming of other residents outside her property could potentially create and/or escalate problems between them.
The landlord interviewed other neighbours about the resident’s allegations as it agreed to do at the meeting of 3 February 2020. This was appropriate because on receipt of a complaint of ASB, an alleged perpetrator must be given an opportunity to be made aware of it, to respond and where relevant, a chance to change their behaviour. In particular the landlord addressed concerns raised about spitting and the incident of 20 December 2020. In doing so, the landlord demonstrated that it had taken matters seriously. The resident raised the incident of 20 December 2020 in further contact with the landlord but with no supporting evidence received from the police, it was reasonable that the landlord took no further action against the neighbour.
Following the complaints procedure, the resident activated the Community Trigger. Although the multiagency meeting that followed did not arise as a direct result of action that the landlord had initiated, the landlord took the opportunity to work with other agencies and review the resident’s case. In advising the resident of the outcome of the meeting, including that historic incidents would not be investigated, the landlord took action to manage the resident’s expectations of the action it would take at that time.
The landlord’s correspondence at this time indicates that it also advised the resident to avoid other neighbours and refrain from circulating allegations about them which was prudent in light of the need to prevent relationships between the resident and other neighbours deteriorating. It also took further steps to manage the resident’s expectations as to whether it would intervene by clarifying that items on her patio were not necessarily indicative that ASB has occurred.
The multi-agency meeting of January 2022 indicates that the landlord continued to work with other agencies to resolve the ASB case, such as a social worker and support workers. It was particular important that the landlord liaised with the resident’s support workers insofar as they had the intention of assisting the resident with day to day living at her property.
In summary, the landlord has taken action that is in line with its ASB policy, and which was reasonable and proportionate to the reports received and supporting evidence. In particular the landlord has offered mediation as a way to resolve the resident’s concern about neighbours, formed an action plan which it followed including interviewing the resident’s neighbours, considered the alleged assault of 20 December 2020, speaking to the neighbours identified, and liaising with other agencies working with the resident. The landlord has also throughout the case sought to manage the resident’s expectations as to the circumstances when it would intervene. The landlord has also provided advice intended to prevent the escalation of incidents.
In its most recent response of 24 March 2022, the landlord advised that the resident could report further incidents of littering and spitting which would be investigated and actioned proportionately. Given that the landlord has limited the contact of the resident it is important that it, going forward, considers new reports, and demonstrates that it has done so, so as to prevent the resident from feeling unheard. The landlord’s response will depend on the severity and frequency of incidents together with the availability of evidence of who is responsible for the new incidents. A recommendation has been made in this regard.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be moved as a result of the ASB

The landlord has repeatedly confirmed that it would offer the resident a management transfer as a way of resolving the resident’s ASB case. In doing so it has exercised flexibility to the benefit of the resident insofar as its ASB policy does not allow for a transfer to resolve an ASB case. Moreover, the Lettings Policy states that management transfers should only be offered in exceptional circumstances, such as where there was a threat to life or serious risk of harm. The landlord has shown further flexibility in allowing the resident to choose the type of property to be offered under a management transfer as opposed to an assessment of what types of property would meet the resident’s housing needs and therefore be considered reasonable.
The landlord’s ability to house people is limited by the number of void properties in its stock, and the size, type and location of these properties. The landlord has advised this Service that the resident has requested accommodation in two specific areas of the city where it does not have properties. Therefore, the fact that the landlord has not offered the resident alternative accommodation within its own stock is not indicative of service failure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints through its internal complaints system

The resident submitted her formal complaint on 17 September 2020. The landlord’s Stage 1 response of 19 October 2020 was sent outside the target timeframe of 15 working days that was in effect at that time. There is no evidence that this delay fundamentally impacted the course of events to the resident’s detriment, therefore the landlord’s apology for the late response constituted reasonable redress for the delay.
The resident then escalated the complaint on 3 November 2020. Although the final response was not sent until several months later, well outside the 20-working day timeframe that was in effect, there was good reason for this, in particular the resident’s request that the landlord not send the complaint response until after it had spoken to her advocate. The landlord took steps to expedite the phone call by checking with the resident on 6 January 2021 and 12 February 2021, and the postponed calls of 19 March 2021 and 14 April 2021 were outside of its control.
After the landlord spoke to the resident on 4 May 2021, it sent the response within 20 working days in line with the complaints procedure. However, the landlord has not provided a contemporaneous note of the phone call and it is not clear who the other party was who took part in the call of 4 May 2021. This is a shortcoming on the part of the landlord as it is important for landlords to maintain records of all actions taken when dealing with a complaint. Such records provide an audit trail of the action it has taken and should be referred to when deciding how to resolve a complaint at that time. A recommendation has therefore been made in this regard.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request to be moved as a result of the ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaints through its internal complaints system.

Reasons

The landlord has taken action that is in line with its ASB policy and which was reasonable and proportionate to the reports received and supporting evidence. In particular, the landlord has offered mediation as a way to resolve the resident’s concern about neighbours, formed an action plan which it followed including interviewing the resident’s neighbours, considered the alleged assault of 20 December 2020, speaking to the neighbour identified, and liaising with other agencies working with the resident. The landlord has also throughout the case sought to manage the resident’s expectations as to the circumstances when it would intervene. The landlord has also provided advice intended to prevent the escalation of incidents.
By agreeing that the resident can be offered a management transfer as a way of resolving her ASB case, the landlord has exercised flexibility to the benefit of the resident. The fact that the landlord has not offered the resident alternative accommodation within its own stock is not indicative of service failure.
The landlord’s apology for the late response at Stage 1 constituted reasonable redress for the delay. Although the final response was not sent until several months later, well outside the 20-working day timeframe that was in effect, there was good reason for this, in particular the resident’s request that the landlord not send the complaint response until after it had spoken to her advocate.

Recommendations

The landlord takes steps to ensure that it maintains contemporaneous records of all actions taken when seeking to resolve a formal complaint.
The landlord fulfils the commitment stated in the response of 24 March 2022 to investigate and respond proportionately to new incidents of littering and spitting that are reported to it.