Platform Housing Group Limited (202300537)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300537

Platform Housing Group Limited

30 September 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 handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. An unauthorised structure in the neighbour’s garden.
2. Anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord with the tenancy beginning March 2017. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
The resident had reported to the landlord that a neighbour (the neighbour) had built a lean to in their garden that affected the light coming into the resident’s property. It is unclear from the evidence when this report was made.
This service was provided with a copy of a letter from the landlord dated 16 April 2021 which authorised the neighbour to install a “free standing lean to”.
On 26 May 2022 the landlord carried out an inspection of the structure, with the notes saying there were no issues identified regarding the resident’s light being blocked out.
On 1 June 2022 the resident made a general report to the landlord regarding frequent loud music and noise from a barking dog at the neighbour’s property. The case notes for June 2022 show that the landlord advised the resident to report the loud music and barking dog to environmental health (EH), providing her with its contact details. An action plan was also completed which included:
1. Offering both parties mediation.
2. Sign posting both parties to third party agencies such as police and environmental health (EH).
3. Carrying out a visit to both parties. A letter was sent to confirm this.
On 21 June 2022 the resident advised the landlord that there was less noise and things had calmed down. However, she wanted someone to check the neighbour had permission for the lean to in the garden. The ASB case was closed on 22 June 2022 and a letter sent to the resident to confirm this.
The resident made further reports of loud music and noise from a barking dog in July 2022, with the landlord offering mediation and to visit the resident to discuss. The resident declined and the case was closed.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 2 February 2023 regarding the structure in the neighbour’s garden and regular parties being held. She said that the structure was unsafe and needed to be moved away from the boundary.
On 9 February 2023 the landlord carried out a joint visit to the resident with the police. The resident explained that she had been experiencing ASB for 6 years. The case notes say that a case review was carried out and the resident was offered mediation and sign posted to environmental health in relation to the noise reports.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 9 March 2023 saying that a surveyor had inspected the structure, and it complied with the permission that had been granted and was within its guidelines. Therefore, it would not take any further action.
Between 13 March 2023 and 3 April 2023:
1. The police sent a ASB warning letter to the neighbour.
2. The landlord:
  1. carried out a case review and updated the action plan.
  2. liaised with EH regarding the noise complaints.
  3. visited the resident and the neighbour.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 28 April 2023. She said that she was unhappy that the structure was too close to the boundary and was too big.
On 12 May 2023 the landlord telephoned the resident and discussed her complaint. It sent its stage 2 response on 5 June 2023 saying that no planning permission was required as it was a temporary structure and was in line with the permission that was granted in April 2021.
The resident advised this service that she has now moved out of the property but was unhappy regarding the size of the structure and the landlord’s failure to have given her prior notice that it was going to be built. She explained that the situation caused her stress and to experience hair loss.

Assessment and findings

Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the situation had on her health and that of her family. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. We do not have sufficient expertise to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on the resident’s health and wellbeing.

Policies

The landlord’s home improvement guide says that it is a resident’s responsibility to check if any works to be carried out, require planning permission or building regulation approval.
Its repair policy says that a secure tenant has a legal right to make alterations and improvements to their home provided that they obtain written permission before they carry out any works and seek all relevant permissions including Planning and Building Regulations approval.
The landlord’s ASB policy says:
1. It is committed to the appropriate use of mediation and low-level interventions and firmly believes this should always be looked at as the first stage in any complaint where appropriate.
2. The landlord will deal with low level incidents of ASB quickly and sensitively as early intervention may avoid escalation.
3. The landlord 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.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an unauthorised structure in the neighbour’s garden

It has been evidenced that the landlord provided the neighbour with permission to install a free-standing lean to on 16 April 2021. The resident had said that the structure was blocking light into her kitchen. It is unclear when the resident first brought this to the landlord’s attention however it carried out an inspection on 26 May 2022. Therefore, this service cannot comment on whether the landlord responded within a reasonable timeframe.
Nevertheless, the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the matter by carrying out an inspection. An internal email evidenced that the surveyor found no issue with “the light being blocked”.
The evidence shows that on 31 May 2022 a message was left for the resident advising her the “structure was fine, and permission still stands”. This was a prompt response provided within 3 working days and was therefore appropriate.
The resident raised concerns again regarding the size of the structure on 21 June 2022. The following day the landlord explained it had inspected the structure and was satisfied that it complied with the permission previously granted and would not be taking any further action.
The landlord’s actions were reasonable and demonstrated that it had investigated the resident’s concerns. And by confirming it would not be taking any further action, helped manage the resident’s expectations going forward.
The resident remained unhappy and raised a formal complaint on 2 February 2023. The landlord responded on 9 March 2023 reiterating that a surveyor had inspected the structure, and it complied with the permission already granted.
On 28 April 2023 the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 disputing that the size of the lean to was compliant with legal requirements. The landlord responded on 5 June 2023 saying it was satisfied that the structure met the requirements of the size and type of structure which it approved in April 2021.
Overall, the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns relating to the lean-to structure. She had said that the structure did not meet legal requirements in relation to its size. The home improvement guide does not stipulate any size restrictions only that any substantial alterations would need a pre inspection. However, they should at least have considered directing the resident to the local authority for further advice.
The landlord advised the resident it had granted permission to the neighbour for the lean to and that the neighbour was not required to advise her on their intention. This was appropriate and in accordance with its policy. It was also appropriate that it carried out an inspection to ensure the structure was compliant with the permission it granted in April 2021 and promptly advised the resident of the outcome of this.
Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an unauthorised structure in the neighbour’s garden.

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

On 1 June 2022 the resident reported ASB from the neighbour in the form of loud music and noise from a barking dog. She said it was affecting her mental health.
The landlord took the following action:
1. It left a telephone message for the resident on 7 June 2022 sign posting her to environmental health (EH) in relation to the noise complaints. It said the EH could provide the use of the noise app to monitor the noise. This was resolution focused.
2. It sent a letter the same day requesting to visit the resident to discuss her concerns. This was appropriate and resolution focused, especially as it had not been able to make contact with the resident over the phone.
3. Following a case discussion, it produced an action plan which considered the following action:
  1. Mediation.
  2. Visits to both the resident and the neighbour.
  3. Sign post to third party agencies.
The landlord had evidenced that it offered the resident mediation and to visit both the resident and the neighbour in its letter of 15 June 2022. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy which says mediation should always be looked at as the first stage in any complaint where appropriate.
Furthermore, the case notes evidence it sign posted the resident to EH in relation to the noise complaints. This was appropriate and in line with its policy that says it will signpost to external agencies as appropriate and necessary on a case-by-case basis.
It is good practice to carry out an ASB risk assessment to help assess the vulnerability of a complainant at the earliest opportunity following a report of ASB. This was particularly important as the resident had said the situation was affecting her mental health. However, the landlord failed to evidence it had carried out a risk assessment which was not appropriate.
On 21 June 2022 the resident contacted the landlord saying things had “calmed down recently and there was less noise from their conservatory/lean to”. As a result, the landlord closed the case, sending the resident a closure letter on 22 June 2022. This was appropriate and kept the resident informed of the action it had taken.
The resident made a further report of loud music, shouting and noise from a barking dog on 23 July 2022, for which she said she had video evidence. The landlord responded on 1 August 2022 and discussed the “nature of the reports”. It offered the resident mediation and suggested a video doorbell. It also said it would visit the resident to view the video evidence she had.
The above actions were appropriate, demonstrating that the landlord was taking some steps to consider how to resolve the ASB reports in accordance with its policy.
The resident declined “intervention” from the landlord and the case was closed following a management review with a closing letter being sent. The landlord acted in line with its policy by taking into “account of the wishes of the complainant” when she declined its interventions.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 2 February 2023 in relation to the neighbour having regular parties. The landlord visited the resident with the police on 9 February 2023. The resident said she felt intimidated by the neighbour and did not want to be in the same room. It discussed the resident’s reports and counter allegations that were made against her. It offered mediation and sign posted the resident to EH.
Whilst mediation and sign posting were appropriate at the beginning stages of the case, it was clear matters had escalated with the resident saying she felt intimidated by the neighbour. An internal case review was held on 21 February 2023 which again suggested the use of mediation. It was not appropriate to continue to suggest the use of mediation and give no consideration to any other methods available to the landlord such as acceptable behaviour contracts or good neighbour agreements.
The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 9 March 2023 in relation to other matters raised by the resident. However, it failed to address the resident’s concerns in relation to the noise from music and parties she was experiencing. This was not appropriate and failed to demonstrate that the landlord had fully considered the resident concerns when providing a response.
On 13 March 2023 the police served the neighbour with an ASB warning. Following this, the landlord was proactive in its approach by carrying out the following action:
1. Carried out a case review discussion on 14 and 21 March 2023.
2. Agreed weekly updates for the resident at an agreed time/date
3. Liaised with EH on 23 March 2023
4. Visited the resident on 24 March 2023
5. Served the neighbour with a warning letter on 29 March 2023.
On 3 April 2023 the landlord visited the resident with the police to update her that a warning letter had been issued to the neighbour. It offered mediation which was refused by the resident and the case was closed on 4 April 2023.
The resident did not raise the issue of ASB in her stage 2 escalation request of 28 April 2023.
In summary, the landlord took proactive steps in investigating the resident’s reports of ASB by:
1. Drawing up an action plan and contacting the neighbour early on in the case.
2. Offering mediation at an early stage demonstrating it was following its policy.
3. Visiting the residents to discuss the ASB she said she was experiencing
4. Carrying out internal case reviews and liaised with EH
5. Sending a warning letter to the neighbour.
Nevertheless, the landlord failed to complete a vulnerability matrix, or risk assessments despite the resident saying the situation was affecting her mental health. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to identify any potential and appropriate level of support for the resident. Furthermore, it did not consider any alternative action aside from mediation. The resident had raised concerns that she felt intimidated and did not want to be in same room as the neighbour.
Therefore, as outlined above there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB. In line with this Service remedies guidance and in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused, £100 compensation has been ordered to be paid to the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy gives 10 working days for a stage 1 complaint response, and 20 working days for a stage 2 response. An additional “early resolution stage” is outlined in the policy which says it will “attempt to resolve the issues within four working days of receipt. If the issue cannot be resolved early, then the complaint will be formally acknowledged as a Formal Complaint investigation within five working days of receipt.”
The landlord should note that the complaint handling code implemented on 1 April 2024 says, “a process with more than two stages is not acceptable under any circumstances as this will make the complaint process unduly long and delay access to the Ombudsman”.
The resident requested to raise a formal complaint on 2 February 2023 regarding a lean to in the neighbour’s garden and regular parties being held. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 15 February 2023 which was 9 working days later. This was not appropriate as the landlord failed to adhere to its complaint policy that says, ‘if the issue cannot be resolved early, then the complaint will be formally acknowledged as a Formal Complaint investigation within five working days of receipt.”
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 9 March 2023 which was 25 working days later. This was not appropriate and significantly outside of its 10-working day policy timescale for a stage 1 complaint response.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 28 April 2023. Whilst the landlord discussed the resident’s formal complaint on 12 and 24 May 2023 it failed to provide a formal written response until 5 June 2023. This was 23 working days later and outside of its policy timescale.
In summary, the landlord failed to adhere to its complaint policy, with both responses being sent outside of its policy timescale. Additionally, it also failed to acknowledge the stage 1 complaint within its policy timescale of 5 working days. Instead, thus taking no action until it formally accepted the complaint on 15 February 2023. This in turn delayed the complaint from being resolved. Furthermore, the landlord did not apologise for the delay or offer to put things right.
Therefore, as outlined above there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and £100 compensation has been awarded to the resident.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the standards landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024.
The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met.
In this investigation, we found failures in the landlord’s complaint handling policy. We have therefore referred this to our team responsible for monitoring compliance with the Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an unauthorised structure in the neighbour’s garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure for the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration for the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £200 made up of:
1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her in relation to its response to her reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. £100 compensation in recognition for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident for the complaint handling delay.
The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report, in line with this service’ apologies guidance. https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/centre-for-learning/key-topics/our-orders/apologies-guidance/
The landlord is to review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its ASB policy, in order to ensure that the above failings do not happen again. In particular, to highlight the need to take a victim centred approach, and ensure risk assessments are completed, monitored and updated regularly.