Platform Housing Group Limited (202331822)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331822

Platform Housing Group Limited

28 October 2024 (amended at review)

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 resident’s report of a data protection breach by the landlord.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour, including the meeting it arranged for the parties to sign an acceptable behaviour contract.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The resident’s report of a data protection breach by the landlord.
On 9 January 2024, the resident reported that the landlord had been responsible for a data protection breach by sending her mail to a neighbour. Paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion…fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) considers complaints about data handling, confidentiality, compliance with the Data Protection Act and the General Data Protection Regulation. Therefore, this Service considers the complaint regarding the resident’s report that the landlord was responsible for a data protection breach to be outside of its jurisdiction. The Ombudsman has therefore not investigated this element of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The property is a 3-bedroom house and the resident has an assured tenancy which began on 17 April 2017.
The landlord’s records state that the resident is vulnerable due to mental health issues, stress and anxiety.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement places an obligation on tenants not to cause or allow members of their household to cause nuisance, annoyance, harassment, alarm or distress or any other actions of an anti-social behaviour nature to another person.

Summary of events

The resident phoned the landlord on 20 June 2023 to report incidents of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour. She said that her neighbour had kept 2 of her son’s footballs that went into the garden during the previous week. She also stated that on 18 June 2023 she noticed animal faeces on her washing, which she believed had been thrown by the neighbour. She added that the neighbour had thrown other objects over her fence, such as bones and eggs. The landlord agreed to visit the resident to obtain further details.
The landlord visited the resident at her home on 27 June 2023 to discuss her report of ASB. The landlord also met with the neighbour on 5 July 2023 and noted that the neighbour made counter-allegations about the resident.
The landlord’s records show that it produced an action plan on 10 July 2023 following the resident’s report of ASB. The action plan stated that the neighbourhood officer had spoken to the landlord’s community safety officer on 21 June 2023. It also confirmed that he had made initial contact with the resident on 27 June 2023, met with the neighbour on 5 July 2023 and completed a risk assessment on 5 July 2023.
During the remainder of July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord on various occasions to report incidents involving the neighbour. These incidents included reports of the neighbour throwing further items into the resident’s garden. The landlord also spoke to the neighbour on various occasions about the allegations.
The landlord’s records show that it produced an action plan during a telephone conversation with the resident on 15 August 2023. The action plan confirmed that it would speak to the neighbour and speak to the police. The plan also stated that the resident should advise the landlord of any new incidents and should refrain from speaking to the neighbour.
The landlord also agreed an action plan with the neighbour on the same date (15 August 2023), which stated that the landlord had advised the neighbour not to make contact with the resident until it had met with the neighbour on 18 August 2023.
During the remainder of August 2023, the resident contacted the landlord on various occasions to report further incidents involving the neighbour. The resident said she had reported some of the incidents to the police and provided the police reference numbers to the landlord. The landlord agreed to speak to the police about the incidents. The landlord’s records show that it unsuccessfully attempted to contact the police and it spoke to the neighbour.
The landlord visited the resident on 6 September 2023 and agreed a further action plan with her. They discussed various historic incidents. The landlord agreed it would contact the police and request them to serve a community protection notice warning (CPNW). The landlord also said it would speak to the neighbour again and possibly arrange for both parties to sign an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC). The landlord also spoke to the resident and the neighbour on 12 September 2023.
The landlord visited the resident at home on 28 September 2023 and reassured her that there had not been any data breach in relation to an action plan that had been sent to the resident but contained the neighbour’s name. The landlord also visited the neighbour on the same day and agreed an action plan with the neighbour, including for her to avoid any contact with the resident and not to throw any items over the fence into the resident’s garden.
The landlord met with the police on 2 October 2023. The landlord and the police agreed that they would arrange for the resident and the neighbour to attend a meeting later that month at the police station to sign an ABC.
On 26 October 2023, the resident and her neighbour signed separate ABCs. The contracts were countersigned by the police and the landlord and stated that the agreements would remain in place for 2 years. The contracts stated that both parties would not act in a manner that caused nuisance, annoyance, alarm or distress to anyone in the neighbourhood. There were also specific commitments regarding the behaviour of each party towards the other.
The resident phoned the landlord on 7 and 8 November 2023 and said that she was unhappy with the way the landlord had handled the meeting on 26 October 2023. She said she felt the landlord was not taking the issues seriously.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 November 2023 and stated that she was considering taking legal action against the landlord for failing in its duty of care. She stated that the landlord had been negligent in arranging the meeting so that she was standing next to the neighbour and said this had been detrimental to her mental health.
On 13 November 2023, the landlord sent an internal email confirming that it had spoken to the resident that day and during the conversation she said she wanted to make a complaint regarding the handling of her ASB case. She referred to the landlord’s handling of the meeting on 26 October 2023. She said that her neighbour had threatened her during the meeting and she felt unsupported by the landlord. The resident said she had made 4 attempts to contact the neighbourhood officer since the meeting to discuss the matter but had not received a call back.
During November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report further incidents involving the neighbour. These included the neighbour posting information on social media about the resident’s husband.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 November 2023 to acknowledge receipt of her complaint and sent its stage one reply to her on 1 December 2023. The reply included the following:
1. The landlord said the complaint was about the landlord’s handling of the meeting with the neighbour on 26 October 2023 and the lack of communication by the landlord following the meeting.
2. The landlord apologised for the lack of communication and confirmed that it upheld the resident’s complaint.
3. The landlord said that the resident had previously reported issues with her neighbour and these had been addressed in a final review (stage 2 complaint) in January 2022. It was therefore unable to review historical ASB issues.
4. The landlord said that issues with the resident’s neighbour had continued in June 2023 and these had been investigated by the resident’s former neighbourhood officer. The case was then taken over by a new neighbourhood officer in August 2023. The new officer visited the resident and had been in contact with her since taking over the case.
5. Following a visit on 28 September 2023, it was agreed that both the resident and her neighbour would attend the local police station to sign an ABC. The landlord’s neighbourhood officer would also be present.
6. The resident stated that during the meeting her neighbour threatened her and neither the police nor the landlord intervened. The resident was also upset that arrangements had been made for the resident and her neighbour to attend the meeting at the same time. She felt that separate meetings should have been arranged.
7. The landlord accepted that it may not have made the resident aware the neighbour would attend at the same time as her. It accepted that such meetings were usually staggered so the 2 parties would not be present at the same time. The landlord stated that the information on its system regarding the arrangements for the meeting were unclear.
8. The landlord said it understood that since signing the ABC, the resident had reported that her neighbour had broken the agreement.
9. The landlord apologised for the lack of communication on its part and said it would discuss this with the officer in question. The landlord apologised that the resident had not received a callback as this had not been recorded on its system.
10. The landlord had arranged to contact the resident on 24 November 2023 to discuss her new concerns and her request for a transfer.
During December 2023, the landlord had various contact with the resident. She reported issues such as the neighbour erecting a 10-foot pole with a flag, which she said was triggering her video doorbell and she said that the neighbour had fitted a light that was shining into her son’s bedroom. The resident stated that the neighbour had breached the terms of the ABC on several occasions.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 December 2023 and requested the landlord to escalate her complaint because of a conversation with her neighbourhood officer.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 December 2023 and stated that she had not received a response to her enquiry. The landlord responded on the same day (15 December 2023) to confirm that one of its advisors had spoken to the resident that afternoon.
The resident phoned the landlord on 21 December 2023 and 4 January 2024 to report that the neighbour had arranged for a contractor to repair her fence and in the process had damaged the resident’s shed. The resident said the police had been called. The landlord agreed to visit to assess the situation.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 9 January 2024 to clarify her complaint. The main points from the conversation were:
1. The resident said that the landlord had breached the Data Protection Act by sending her mail to the neighbour.
2. The resident said there was a delay of 2 or 3 weeks in receiving the action plan from the landlord.
3. The resident said the landlord had “made excuses for the neighbour” by saying the resident had a nice house and car and the neighbour did not have these.
4. She said she had not received any visits from the landlord since signing the ABC, even though the neighbour had breached the agreement.
5. The resident outlined some of the issues she had reported to the landlord in recent months, such as damage to her fencing and her shed. The resident also reported that the neighbour had threatened her.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 January 2024 and asked for someone to call her regarding the reported issues with her neighbour. She stated that her mental health was deteriorating and she was suicidal because she said the landlord had failed to act. The landlord replied to her on the same day and advised her that one of its managers had unsuccessfully tried to contact her that morning.
The landlord spoke to the police on 11 January 2024 and the police confirmed they had visited the resident and the neighbour several times recently. They considered the matter to be a civil dispute over fence boundaries. They confirmed they had spoken to both parties and given advice but had not recorded any criminal offences.
The landlord visited the resident at her home on 11 January 2024. The resident said she was unhappy because she felt that the landlord had not taken any action against the neighbour. She again reported that the neighbour’s contractor had previously damaged her shed. The landlord advised the resident that any claims of damage would have to be dealt with as a civil claim against the contractor. The landlord concluded by saying it would liaise with the police and would visit the neighbour.
The landlord visited the resident on 18 January 2024 to carry out further investigations regarding her complaint. The landlord advised the resident that there was insufficient evidence to enable it to take legal action, however, ‘shuttle’ mediation might offer some solutions. The landlord explained that it would require an extension of time to respond to the stage 2 complaint as it was waiting for information from the police.
The landlord’s records show that it received information on 22 January 2024 from the neighbour about an incident that had been reported to the police. An allegation had been made that the resident had sprayed the neighbour’s fence.
The landlord wrote to the police on 23 January 2024 to request information about their involvement in relation to the dispute between the resident and her neighbour. The landlord submitted forms to request the information formally under Section 115 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 January 2024 to confirm her agreement for the final review response deadline to be extended to 8 February 2024. The landlord stated that it was still waiting for information from the police.
The police wrote to the landlord on 25 January 2024 and said that the landlord had arranged the meeting on 26 October 2023 to mediate between the 2 neighbours. The police confirmed that both parties had signed the ABCs. The police then provided further information to the landlord on 1 February 2024 in response to its information request. The information showed that the police were still investigating an altercation between the resident and her neighbour regarding alleged damage to a fence.
The landlord sent its stage 2 (final review) letter to the resident on 8 February 2024 in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord confirmed that it had spoken to the resident on 9 January 2024 and visited her at home on 18 January 2024.
2. The landlord said it had investigated the resident’s complaint, which was:
  1. There had been a data protection breach because it had sent correspondence to the resident’s neighbour.
  2. The resident’s reports of ASB had not been well managed by the landlord.
3. The landlord said it had also looked at its handling of the resident’s complaint and found that the complaint had been acknowledged and responded to in line with its policy.
4. The landlord said it had found the stage one complaint had been investigated thoroughly. However, the resident had not been offered any compensation for the service failures, despite the landlord upholding the complaint.
5. The landlord stated that it had not been able to consider the resident’s report of a data protection breach because it had responded to this separately on 9 November 2023.
6. The landlord concluded that the resident’s complaint was partially upheld. It upheld her report that the meeting at the police station had not been conducted in a professional manner. The landlord accepted that it had been aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and should have advised the resident that the meeting would involve face-to-face contact with her neighbour. The landlord confirmed that it had not found any record that it had explained this to the resident beforehand and therefore apologised for this.
7. The landlord accepted that although it had completed action plans in July, August and September 2023, it had found no record that it had shared these with the resident. The landlord therefore upheld this part of the resident’s complaint.
8. The resident had reported being upset following a conversation with the landlord’s neighbourhood officer because she said he had implied that she was in a better position than her neighbour. The landlord confirmed it had discussed the matter with the officer who had apologised and explained that he had not intended to cause any offence. The landlord apologised that the resident had been upset by the conversation.
9. The landlord said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint that it had not taken the correct action against the neighbour. The landlord confirmed it had opened an ASB case against the neighbour in June 2023 and the neighbour had made allegations against the resident in May 2023. The landlord had reviewed the evidence and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to take legal action against the neighbour. The landlord had visited the resident on 11 and 18 January 2024 and spoken to her on 9 January 2024 as part of its investigations.
10. The landlord concluded that the ABC had been a proportionate and appropriate response to address the issues between the resident and her neighbour.
11. The police had previously served a CPNW on the resident and her neighbour in January 2022. The landlord said that the CPNW seemed to achieve the objectives of improving the situation and of reducing incidents reported to the police and to the landlord. Therefore, as these had now expired, the landlord said it had asked the police in September and October 2023 about issuing another CPNW. However, the police had advised they were unable to consider this due to the nature of the allegations and the lack of evidence.
12. The landlord said the police had provided it with a disclosure of calls and, having reviewed the information, the landlord was satisfied it had worked in partnership with the police.
13. The landlord concluded that while the management of the ASB case had mainly followed its procedure, the case notes lacked detail about conversations with the parties. The landlord also found that it had not given the resident a full explanation of the procedures and legislation governing tenancy breaches and ASB. The landlord repeated that it had found no evidence that it had shared the action plans with the resident.
14. The landlord confirmed that it had identified service failures and it had reminded its staff about the need to manage expectations by having “honest conversations” with residents and confirming agreed actions in writing. The landlord said it had also learned from the meeting at the police station and said it would explain any arrangements for meetings with residents and confirm this in writing.
15. The landlord suggested that both parties should agree to independent mediation as a way forward. This would involve shuttle mediation so the parties would not have to meet.
16. The landlord said it had arranged for a member of its community safety team to visit the resident with the neighbourhood officer to explain its ASB procedures.
17. The landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication, its handling of the meeting at the police station and its failure to send the action plans to the resident. The landlord offered compensation of £500.

Events after the landlord’s stage 2 (final review) reply

A multi-agency meeting took place on 22 February 2024 and was attended by the landlord, the police and other stakeholders. It was noted that there had been many complaints from both parties and there had been very little evidence of a perpetrator. It was agreed that the landlord would suggest mediation as a solution.
The landlord met with the resident at her home on 23 February 2024. The resident explained that the issues with her neighbour had continued. The landlord explained that there were no independent witnesses to the reported incidents and the neighbour had made counter-allegations about her. It was agreed that the landlord would refer the matter to an independent mediator. The landlord spoke to the neighbour on the same day (23 February 2024) and she agreed to be contacted by the mediators. The landlord therefore referred the resident and her neighbour to an independent mediation company on 29 February 2024.
The landlord spoke to the police on 29 February 2024 and they confirmed they had been investigating ASB issues reported by the resident. The police confirmed that they would close their cases as there were no crimes committed, no witnesses and no evidence to support the allegations.
On 28 March 2024, the mediation company wrote to the landlord and attached a copy of an agreement between the resident and her neighbour. The mediation company confirmed it had now closed the case.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 23 May 2024 and she advised the landlord there had been no further issues with the neighbour since the mediation.
During June 2024, there were email exchanges between the resident and the landlord regarding an incident on 3 June 2024 involving her husband and the neighbour’s brother. The landlord confirmed it would investigate the latest incident and produced an action plan on 6 June 2024.
The landlord visited the resident at home on 27 June 2024. The resident said there had been various incidents since January 2024 but “nothing major” had occurred until an incident in June 2024.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 September 2024 to confirm that the mediation had proved to be a positive solution and therefore the resident had said she was happy for the landlord to close the ASB case.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident advised the landlord on various occasions that the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB had a detrimental impact on her mental health. For example, she stated this in her emails dated 11 November 2023 and 11 January 2024.
The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this option. The Ombudsman has, however, assessed the service the landlord provided and any overall distress or inconvenience this may have caused.
The resident advised the landlord on 13 December 2023 that her neighbour had harassed her for 5 years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from June 2023 onwards. Reference to the events that occurred prior to June 2023 has been made in this report to provide context.
The Ombudsman has received information showing events that took place after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 8 February 2024. A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by a neighbour, including the meeting it arranged for the parties to sign an acceptable behaviour contract

The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy states:
1. The landlord will work in partnership with partner agencies to respond effectively to reports of ASB.
2. The landlord will respond to reports of ASB (where these do not involve hate incidents) within 3 working days.
3. “We will also review any potential vulnerability and the likely risk of harm to the complainant by normally completing a vulnerability risk assessment”.
4. An initial action plan will normally be agreed with complainants, taking into account the outcome of the vulnerability risk assessment…”
5. “Action plans will also normally be completed wherever possible with respondents of ASB, ensuring they are made aware of the allegations, capturing their response and providing them with actions required”.
6. “Reasonable and proportionate intervention will be taken in response to ASB, which could include non-legal remedies such as visits, mediation, warning letters or acceptable behaviour contracts or legal remedies such as injunction or possession proceedings. Interventions may also be in collaboration with partner agencies”.
The landlord’s records state that both the resident and the neighbour had made allegations and counter-allegations about ASB. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported happened or not. The role of this Service is to establish whether the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
Following the resident’s report of ASB by her neighbour on 20 June 2023, the landlord agreed to visit the resident to obtain further details. The landlord therefore visited the resident at her home on 27 June 2023. The landlord also visited the neighbour on 5 July 2023 to discuss the allegations. It was reasonable for the landlord to have visited the resident as part of its initial investigation into her report of ASB. The interview would have enabled the landlord to obtain further information about the events and the level of harm that had been caused. It was also reasonable for the landlord to have interviewed the neighbour to allow her to put forward her side of events.
The landlord produced a risk assessment on 5 July 2023, which was appropriate as this was in line with its ASB Policy. The landlord produced an action plan on 10 July 2023, which again was appropriate and in line with its policy. However, the landlord later accepted in its stage 2 reply that the action plan had not been shared with the resident. It was inappropriate that the landlord had not agreed the action plan with the resident at or shortly after the initial interview. This was contrary to its ASB policy and it meant that the landlord had not given the resident an opportunity to agree the communication arrangements, the next steps the landlord would take and any steps the resident should take.
In July 2023, the resident reported further ASB incidents involving the neighbour and the landlord agreed a verbal action plan with the resident on 15 August 2023, which involved the landlord speaking to the neighbour and the police. The landlord also advised the resident to report any new incidents and to refrain from speaking to the neighbour. It was reasonable for the landlord to agree an action plan with the resident as she had contacted the landlord on various occasions in July 2023 to report further incidents.
The landlord maintained reasonable contact with the resident during September 2023 by visiting her on 6 and 28 September 2023 and speaking to her on 12 September 2023.
The landlord met with the police on 2 October 2023 and agreed with them that arrangements would be made for the resident and the neighbour to sign an ABC. It was reasonable for the landlord to meet with the police as the resident had confirmed that she had reported various incidents involving the neighbour to the police. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will work in partnership with other agencies to respond effectively to ASB reports.
It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for both parties to sign an ABC because:
1. The landlord had agreed with the resident on 6 September 2023 that it would explore this option with the police.
2. The landlord had jointly agreed the approach with the police.
3. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it may decide to use non-legal remedies such as ABCs where it considers their use to be reasonable and proportionate.
The resident and the neighbour met at the police station on 26 October 2023 and both signed an ABC. However, the resident contacted the landlord on 7 and 8 November 2023 to advise that she was unhappy with the way the meeting had been conducted. She also wrote to the landlord on 11 November 2023 and stated that in her view the landlord had failed in its duty of care by arranging for her and the neighbour to attend at the same time. The resident said the experience had been detrimental to her mental health.
In its stage 2 reply dated 8 February 2024, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint that the meeting on 26 October 2023 had not been conducted in a professional manner. It accepted that it did not inform the resident beforehand that she and the neighbour would both be attending the meeting at the same time. The landlord accepted that due to the resident’s vulnerabilities it should have explained this to the resident.
The landlord was aware of the resident’s known vulnerabilities and the previous incidents involving the resident and her neighbour. Therefore, the Ombudsman agrees that it was unreasonable for the landlord to arrange for both the resident and the neighbour to attend the meeting at the same time without notifying the resident of this beforehand. Based on the emails sent by the resident after the meeting, the resident was both surprised and upset that she had not been made aware of this prior to the meeting.
The resident advised the landlord on 13 November 2023 that she had made 4 attempts following the meeting to contact the neighbourhood officer but she had not received a call back. In its stage one reply, the landlord apologised that the resident had not received a call back and said it would discuss this with the officer in question.
In her complaint, the resident said that the neighbour had threatened her during the meeting on 26 October 2023 and she felt unsupported by the landlord. In conducting its investigations, the Ombudsman relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
The Ombudsman has not seen any record or notes of the meeting in question. Therefore, in the absence of any contemporaneous notes of the meeting, this Service is unable to determine whether the landlord responded appropriately or provided adequate support to the resident during the meeting. However, the Ombudsman’s view is that it was unreasonable for the landlord not to use its stage one or stage 2 replies to respond specifically to the resident’s reports of threats and a lack of support at the meeting.
On 9 January 2024, the resident advised the landlord that she was unhappy about a conversation with the neighbourhood officer. The resident said the officer had advised her that she was fortunate to be in a better position than her neighbour. The resident believed this was an attempt to “excuse” the neighbour’s behaviour. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 reply that it had spoken to the officer in question. The officer had apologised and explained that he had not intended his remarks to cause any offence. The landlord apologised that the resident had been upset by the conversation.
The landlord therefore took appropriate action to investigate the resident’s concerns about the conversation and apologised to the resident that she had been upset by the remarks. The apology was, in the Ombudsman’s view, a proportionate response by the landlord as the resident had clearly been upset by the conversation.
During January 2024, the evidence shows that the landlord maintained reasonable contact with the resident regarding her reports of ASB. For example, the landlord spoke to her by phone on 9 January 2024, visited her at home on 11 and 18 January 2024 and wrote to her on 11 and 25 January 2024.
The landlord also worked with the police in relation to the reported ASB issues. For example, the landlord spoke to the police on 11 January 2024 and submitted requests to the police on 23 January 2024 for information under Section 115 of the Crime and Disorder Act. It was appropriate for the landlord to continue working with the police as the resident had reported a further ASB incident to the police.
Part of the resident’s complaint was that the landlord had not taken appropriate action against her neighbour for ASB. The evidence shows that the landlord had carried out reasonable investigations into the resident’s reports of ASB by interviewing the resident and her neighbour on various occasions and by working with the police. As stated in its stage 2 reply, the landlord had concluded that there was insufficient evidence to take legal action. It had therefore pursued the following non-legal remedies:
1. It had asked the police whether it was appropriate to serve a CPNW. The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply that a CPNW had previously been served on both parties in January 2022 and these had expired but had improved the situation prior to their expiry.
2. The landlord and the police arranged for both parties to sign an ABC on 26 October 2023.
3. It had advised the resident and the neighbour not to contact each other.
4. The landlord suggested in its stage 2 reply that it should arrange independent ‘shuttle’ mediation and arranged this shortly after sending the stage 2 reply.
The Ombudsman’s view is that having decided that legal action was not appropriate, the landlord used reasonable and proportionate non-legal remedies to resolve the reports of ASB. The remedies used were in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
In summary, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord carried out reasonable investigations into the resident’s reports of ASB and used reasonable and proportionate remedies to resolve the reports of ASB. However, the landlord failed to agree an initial action plan with the resident at, or shortly after, the initial interview. It also did not advise her that she would come face-to face with the neighbour at the meeting on 26 October 2023 and it did not return her calls to discuss her concerns following the meeting, despite knowing about her vulnerabilities. Finally, the landlord did not use the complaints process specifically to address the resident’s reports that she had been threatened and felt unsupported during the meeting.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will 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.
In this case, the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging and apologising for its handling of the meeting on 26 October 2023, which it accepted had not been conducted in a professional manner. It accepted that it should have advised the resident beforehand that the neighbour would be present. The landlord also apologised for the lack of communication with the resident following the meeting. Finally, the landlord apologised for not sharing the action plans with the resident.
The landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication and offered the resident £500 compensation. The sum offered was in the range of compensation set out in the landlord’s remedies and compensation policy for cases where there have been “a series of service failures…causing moderate to high levels of distress and inconvenience”.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of £500 demonstrates an appropriate recognition by the landlord that its handling of the meeting on 26 October 2023 had caused the resident distress, particularly due to her vulnerabilities. It also shows a recognition that her distress was exacerbated by the landlord’s lack of communication after the meeting. Finally, the amount offered recognised the distress caused by the landlord’s failure to follow its ASB policy of agreeing action plans with residents in a timely manner.
The landlord demonstrated learning from the outcomes of this case by:
1. Reminding its staff about the need to manage residents’ expectations and confirm agreed actions in writing.
2. Ensuring that arrangements for meetings are explained to residents beforehand and are confirmed in writing.
3. The landlord had used the experience from the meeting of 26 October 2023 to suggest using ‘shuttle’ mediation so that the 2 parties would not have to meet during the mediation process.
Overall, the landlord apologised for its failings and the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, offered reasonable compensation to put things right and demonstrated its commitment to ensuring such issues do not recur in future. For these reasons, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord provided redress to the resident which was reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s report of a data protection breach by the landlord is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by a neighbour, including the meeting it arranged for the parties to sign an acceptable behaviour contract.

Reasons

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) considers complaints about data handling, confidentiality, compliance with the Data Protection Act and the General Data Protection Regulation.
The landlord apologised for its failings and the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, offered reasonable compensation to put things right and demonstrated its commitment to ensuring such issues do not reoccur in future.

Recommendation

The landlord should reoffer the resident the £500 offered in its stage 2 reply if this has not already been paid.