Sanctuary Housing Association (202308865)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308865

Sanctuary Housing Association

24 June 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 follow 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy on a garden flat owned by the housing association landlord. The tenancy agreement began on 6 October 2008. Both the resident and her daughter have pursued this complaint. For the purpose of this report, both will be referred to as ‘the resident’. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
The property is managed by a Tenant Management Cooperative (TMC) on behalf of the landlord. A management agreement sets out each organisation’s responsibilities. The TMC is responsible for operating the CCTV, managing ASB cases and handling stage 1 complaints in accordance with the landlord’s policies and procedures. The landlord is responsible for responding to stage 2 complaints.
On 1 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and said she had been reporting ASB to the TMC since March 2022, which had escalated, and she was now afraid for her safety. She said:
1. A neighbour had told her he had a gun and was not afraid to use it.
2. Other residents had been threatened but were afraid to come forward.
3. The police had been called to the property. It allegedly asked the TMC for the CCTV footage, but it had been deleted.
4. The neighbour’s brother was on the TMC’s committee and had access to the office and the CCTV recorders.
5. The resident installed a camera on her doorbell and would provide footage.
The landlord called the resident on 2 November 2022 to discuss the case. The resident said she was uncomfortable dealing with the TMC because of the family connection between the TMC and the neighbour. The landlord assured the resident that a family member would not be involved in handling ASB. It asked the resident to resubmit her reports to the TMC.
The landlord discussed the case with the TMC on 7 November 2002. The TMC said, “ASB was ongoing and has been ongoing for a long time involving the neighbour”. However, members of the TMC said to the landlord in the meeting that they were “unwilling to put their lives at risk” by speaking to the resident’s neighbour”. The landlord said that, ultimately, a member of the TMC would have to talk with the neighbour, as it was conscious that the TMC should manage ASB cases up to a stage where legal action was taken.
The resident complained directly to the landlord on 15 February 2023 and said she had initially reported ASB incidents to the TMC in March 2022 but received no response. Following the landlord’s request on 2 November 2022, she resubmitted the evidence to the TMC. However, she said it then became apparent that the content of her conversation with the TMC had become known to other residents. She said The ASB got worse, making her life a ‘misery’. The resident contacted this service on 12 June 2023 and asked that we intervene as the landlord had not responded to her complaint.
The landlord responded with its stage 1 response on 24 August 2023 and said:
1. The landlord has a management agreement with the TMC. The TMC, not the landlord, was responsible for managing ASB reports. It accepted that this could be confusing for residents, especially when reports were made directly to the landlord.
2. It recognised that the resident had raised her complaint in February 2023, and the landlord transferred it to the TMC to respond in May 2023. The TMC advised that they had responded, but there was no record. The TMC had checked the CCTV footage but could not find footage of the ASB.
3. It acknowledged the resident had said she had left messages to the TMC’s manager in her office, and these had gone missing. The landlord would investigate this.
4. Regarding the allegation that the TMC’s manager had told the resident to “take the cameras down, stop complaining, and something might then happen”, it did not have evidence to investigate.
5. Diary sheets were crucial and regularly used as evidence in legal proceedings, and the resident should try to complete them.
6. It had received no further reports since February 2023, and the case was closed.
7. It offered the resident £250 in recognition of any inconvenience caused.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 31 August 2023. She said:
1. The ASB had not stopped during the landlord’s delay in dealing with her complaint since February 2023. She was left scared in her home.
2. The TMC had been given numerous opportunities but had failed to follow correct procedures.
3. The TMC had provided the resident with an alternative email address as some of her previous emails had been seen by other residents on the estate. This confirmed her suspicion of a family connection between the neighbour and the TMC.
4. The goodwill gesture of £250 was inadequate and was not accepted.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 2 October 2023, the landlord said that:
1. It did not carry out the vulnerability assessment under its ASB policy.
2. It did not keep records of the resident’s initial ASB report and did not have records of an action plan.
3. The resident failed to submit the daily activity sheets.
4. It could not find records of the meeting between the resident and the TMC.
5. It did not have records of whether the resident confirmed her agreement for the landlord to contact the neighbour.
6. It did not have a record of the relevant warning letter it said the had TMC sent to the neighbour.
7. The resident had chased the TMC to respond to her February 2023 complaint. However, there is no evidence that she received a response.
8. It failed to take proactive action regarding the assessment of the ASB outside the resident’s front door / communal entrance.
9. It failed to liaise with the police.
10. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused, it offered the resident £400 for its failings in handling the ASB case and £350 for its failings in handling the associated complaint, bringing a total compensation of £750.
The resident contacted this service on 26 October 2023. She said she had provided the landlord with videos showing hate crimes, threatening behaviour, damage to property, eggs, maggots, unremovable paint and rubbish bags thrown on her garden as well as her front door, throwing a football at her door until 3 am, misuse of the communal lobby outside her front door, and vandalising her son’s car. The compensation amount did not cover her incurred cost and was not accepted. During the course of this investigation, the resident told us she had now exchanged property with one of her children and lives on the other side of the estate. To resolve the complaint, she would like to be compensated better and for the landlord to learn from the outcome and improve the situation for all estate residents.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is acknowledged that the landlord had a management agreement with the TMC to manage tenancy issues, including ASB cases. However, the landlord, not the TMC, has a legal relationship with the resident. The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction guidance says a member landlord is responsible for the actions of a managing agent, whether or not the agent is a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. In effect, failures by the TMC were failures by the landlord. This assessment distinguishes between the landlord and the TMC for ease of reading only.
This Service recognises that the issues reported by the resident have caused her significant distress. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party was responsible for ASB. This service also does not have the expertise to establish a causal link between an ASB event and its effect on health. Our investigation will consider the landlord’s actions in the context of its relevant policies and procedures and what was fair in all the circumstances of the case.

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

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.
The ASB, Crime and Policing Act (2014) defines ASB as conduct that has caused or is likely to cause housing-related harassment, alarm or distress, nuisance, or annoyance.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord would not tolerate behaviour that causes or is likely to cause nuisance, annoyance, or harassment. The landlord’s ASB policy states that the critical factor in deciding whether any specific behaviour is antisocial is its impact on others.
The management agreement sets out key performance indicators for the landlord to monitor the performance of the TMC. It ultimately gives the landlord the power to end the agreement if, in its opinion, the service was inadequate.
On 1 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and said she had been reporting ASB to the TMC since March 2022 but received no response. She said the ASB had since escalated, and she was now fearing for her safety. The landlord called the resident back within 24 hours, in accordance with its ASB policy, for reports involving threatening behaviour.
According to the evidence, this was the first time the landlord was notified of the ASB; therefore, it was reasonable that it initially signposted the resident to the TMC in accordance with its policy. The landlord said it would ask the TMC to call the resident. Subsequently, the TMC called the resident on 3 November 2022 to discuss the case. However, the landlord’s ASB policy says that if another agency is leading the investigation, the landlord would advise the resident of its arrangement with the agency, in writing, so that residents are clear on the landlord’s involvement moving forward. There is no evidence that the landlord did so.
On 7 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again and said she did not have confidence in the TMC managing her ASB report. She said she had been reporting the issue since March 2022, but the TMC advised her it only had 1 previous report. She said there was a ‘conflict of interest’ as her neighbour’s brother was a committee member of the TMC, and she said he had access to the office, including the record-keeping and CCTV footage. The landlord advised that a family member would not be involved in managing reports of ASB. However, it said it was due to meet the TMC later that afternoon and would discuss the case with the TMC. The landlord was resolution-focused here.
During the meeting on 7 November 2022, the TMC told the landlord that the ASB was “ongoing and has been ongoing for a long time involving [the neighbour]”, but members of the TMC said that they were “unwilling to put their families at risk” by speaking with the neighbour. The TMC asked if the landlord was prepared to do so and put its family at risk. This was concerning for several reasons:
1. The TMC was aware that issues involving the neighbour’s ASB had been ongoing for some time, yet it only had 1 previous report on record. There is no evidence that it had opened an ASB case or carried out an action plan or risk assessment. At the very least, the landlord missed an opportunity to ensure the TMC had appropriate record-keeping practices, which would have provided the landlord with an overview of the ongoing issues affecting its residents and an understanding of how well the TMC was delivering services on behalf of the landlord.
2. According to the evidence, the landlord was made aware that 4 years ago, the neighbour had a conflict with the TMC. As a result, the neighbour was banned from going to the office, and the TMC was banned from talking to the neighbour. It was unclear who had agreed to these terms, how long they would last, and who would have mediated between the parties to reach this agreement. There is no evidence that the landlord investigated this further. This was not appropriate.
3. The resident reported that the neighbour threatened her with a gun and alleged that other residents had been threatened but were frightened to make reports. Members of the TMC were reluctant to address the neighbour’s behaviour out of fear of repercussion. There was an allegation of conflict of interest and alleged interference with CCTV. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have carried out a risk assessment to consider whether the TMC had an appropriate action plan and the skills and experience to deliver its plan in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy.
On 10 November 2022, the resident told the landlord that the neighbour had spat in her face, but she hesitated to report to the TMC because of the ‘conflict of interest’. The landlord said “she could not pick and choose” who deals with her report”. However, from the outset, the resident said she was not trying to bypass the TMC. She had reported the ASB to the TMC, but the TMC failed to take action, and the information she had disclosed to the TMC became known to her neighbour, which made the situation worse. The landlord was heavy-handed here, and its tone was unsympathetic and inappropriate.
Furthermore, on 14 November 2022, the landlord asked the TMC to phone the resident. It said that as the neighbour’s brother, a committee member, lived just a few doors down from the resident, it would not ask that the TMC visit in person. The landlord was aware of underlying complexities that may impact the TMC’s handling of the ASB case. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether it was appropriate to insist that the TMC continue to manage the case, as it did during its meeting with the TMC on 7 November 2002. It should be noted that the management agreement provides the landlord with a provision to assist the TMC in certain situations. The landlord eventually took the lead on the case, confirmed in its stage 1 complaint response on 24 August 2023, nearly 18 months after the resident reported it.
On 15 November 2022, the resident emailed the landlord a video from her doorbell camera. The landlord was not able to view the video, and it sent the file to the TMC on 17 November 2022, saying it “did not think it was a good idea to ask residents to send in the footage as this may well clog up the email inbox due to the size of the attachments”. However, this service has seen evidence that the landlord recommended that the resident send videos to the landlord. She sent 5 videos on 7 November 2022, which the landlord confirmed had been received and forwarded to its housing officers on 8 November 2022. She sent another video on 11 November 2022 and 3 on 15 November 2022. These were missing from the landlord’s records, and there is no evidence that it had acted on the evidence the resident provided, which was inappropriate.
The landlord said videos should not be sent as it may clog its email. It also said the TMC did not have to visit the resident’s home in person. It was also known that previously, the resident left information for the TMC’s manager in her office that went missing. It is, therefore, unclear what the landlord’s preferred format was for receiving video evidence from the resident. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have a system to allow residents to do so in any format. This service had no issues with accepting such files from the resident. These were short doorbell videos that the landlord had initially recommended the resident email over.
On 5 December 2022, the TMC asked the landlord to take over the case. However, the landlord insisted the TMC must continue, and it offered to help by drafting letters. The TMC said they did not need help with letters but instead required someone in person to act as a witness. It was clear that the TMC encountered operational challenges here. There is no evidence that the landlord considered whether this may adversely affect or cause detriment to the residents. The statutory guidance of the ASB Crime and Policing Act says, “victims’ welfare, safety and well-being must be the main consideration at every stage… particularly if there was a cumulative impact on the resident’s mental or physical well-being”. Despite the resident expressing how the ASB affected her life, there is no evidence that the landlord considered whether it could mitigate the impact on the resident. This was not appropriate.
The landlord could have taken a range of actions to support the resident better, such as:
1. completing a risk assessment
2. forming an action plan
3. consulting with the police
4. interviewing both parties and witnesses
5. offering mediation
6. signposting the resident to external support services
7. assisting the resident with gathering evidence of ASB by finding a way for the resident to send videos that would not clog the landlord’s inbox
8. providing the resident with a written management arrangement it has with the TMC
9. It is also recognised that the resident could have assisted with her case by completing the daily activity sheets.
In its final response letter, the landlord acknowledged that the TMC had handled the case poorly. There is no evidence that it accepted that it had the overall responsibility for the TMC or that it was legally obliged to the resident by way of the tenancy agreement. Further, there was clear evidence of shortcomings with the landlord’s record keeping and communications, independent of any action by the TMC.
Except for 1 email the resident forwarded to this service in June 2024, which was an email she had previously sent to the landlord in November 2022. All the evidence relied on in this assessment was provided to us by the landlord. The landlord had access to the evidence while the case was ongoing. In its final response letter, the landlord acknowledged that “there was a lack of detailed recording and monitoring, which has restricted its investigation in evaluating whether it had acted in line with policy”. This was also reflected in gaps in the evidence provided to this service.
However, it was also open to the landlord to proactively work with the TMC and other agencies, such as the police and find out, for example, why they had served an injunction to the neighbour in February 2023. It is reasonable to assume that if the evidence was sufficient for the police to act, it would have also been sufficient for the landlord.
Overall, the landlord failed to recognise its overall responsibility for the TMC and, ultimately, its legal obligation to the resident. It was unable to provide evidence to show it had followed its ASB policy and failed to consider the impact on the resident. The landlord’s failures amounted to severe maladministration.
The resident reported living in fear and raised concerns about her mental health. She reported feeling ignored by the landlord, which exacerbated her distress. She said this was not merely a ‘nuisance’ (as the landlord defined the complaint in its stage 1 response), as it had changed everything in her daily life. She suffered panic attacks going to the corner shop; she was afraid to sit in her garden; the relationship with her children was affected as a result of the pressure and strain on their family. She lost confidence in the landlord and ultimately felt she had to leave her home. There is no evidence that the landlord had any mechanism to support the resident.
Based on the evidence, the landlord’s failures affected the resident for two years. She initially reported the issue in March 2022. The situation had ended because the resident had moved out of her home. The landlord formally agreed on the mutual exchange with her son; however, even here, there was a delay of a year for this to be actioned. The landlord’s compensation of £400 was insufficient and did not put it right to the resident.
An order of compensation has been made below in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident over 24 months.
Finally, while the landlord identified learning from the case by way of providing the TMC with its ASB policy and refresher training to members of the TMC’s committee, there is no evidence that the landlord considered the falling within its mainline operations or that it identified learning from the case. An order has been made below for the landlord to learn from the outcome.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to acknowledge their failures and describe the actions they have taken or intend to take to put things right. Complaints can provide independent, practical, and unique insights, give an early warning system for significant problems, and act as a catalyst for organisational learning.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. Once escalated to stage 2, it aims to send a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
The management agreement states that the TMC will respond to Stage 1, and the landlord will respond to Stage 2 complaints.
The resident raised her Stage 1 complaint on 15 February 2023. She approached this service on 12 June 2023 and asked that we intervene and ask the landlord to respond to her complaint. The landlord said it had asked the TMC to respond in May 2023. This was, in itself, a significant delay, which was not appropriate.
Against a target of 10 working days, the landlord responded with its stage 1 complaint response 136 working days later, on 24 August 2023, which was inappropriate.
While the landlord’s offer of compensation of £350 was appropriate to put right the failings in its handling of the complaint, there is no evidence that it accepted ownership of its failings; consequently, there is no evidence that it identified learning or implemented changes to ensure it would not repeat the same mistakes, and for this reason, there was a service failure here. Orders have been made below for the landlord to pay the compensation it had offered to the resident, as well as to apologise to the resident and identify learning.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord’s in its handling of the resident’s report of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, a senior director, independent of the TMC, must apologise to the resident in person for the failures identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident directly compensation of £2,502 compromising:
1. £1,000 for the distress caused to the resident by the failures identified in its response to reports of ASB.
2. £1,152 for loss of enjoyment of her property for 24 months, calculated at 10% of the monthly rental of £480.
3. £350, it offered to pay the resident for the distress caused by its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54 (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, a senior member of the landlord’s leadership team, independent of the TMC, must conduct a full case review. It must identify the reasons for the failings identified in this report and the measures it would need to take to prevent similar failings from occurring. A copy of the review must be sent to this service within 4 weeks. The review must include (at the minimum):
1. Its strategic oversight of tenant management organisations as a whole, and particularly the resident’s TMC; whether it followed the key performance indicators listed in its management agreement; and if so, what led to the landlord’s lack of oversight into how the TMC delivered management functions on behalf of the landlord.
2. Investigate the measures it would need to ensure that when issues come to light, it would take a proactive approach to prevent deterioration. For example, the landlord knew in November 2022 that the TMC did not have a system in place for record keeping. There is no evidence that the landlord acted on this to date. It is for the landlord to decide the measures it would need to take to avoid repeating these failures.