Sanctuary Housing Association (202346145)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346145

Sanctuary Housing Association

10 March 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and communication from the Housing Officer (HO).
2. Request for a move to another property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which commenced in 2013. He lives in a 2-bedroom ground floor flat within a block containing 2 flats. He has a live in carer following multiple strokes.
The resident’s carer has supported him throughout the complaint process. For ease of reference, the representative’s actions will be referred to as the resident’s throughout the report.
Between February and December 2023 the landlord received reports of ASB via the resident and his MP. These included allegations of shouting, banging, intimidation, ‘loud machine noise’, verbal insults, racial abuse, and suspected drug taking. The landlord visited the resident, installed noise monitoring equipment (NME), and liaised with the police. The ASB case was open when the resident raised his complaint.
On 1 February 2024 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord regarding ongoing ASB which he said was affecting his mental health, and the lack of contact regarding rehousing advice. He did not receive a response.
On 14 March 2024 the resident approached us for help in raising a complaint with the landlord. We asked it to raise the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 5 April 2024 when it:
1. said the HO visited the resident on 26 March 2024 to discuss the ASB which included bins being left in the resident’s path, noise from the flat above and the smell of cannabis
2. confirmed the bins had been removed and no further problems had been reported, the recordings of the noise were during the day and not to excessive levels, confirmed the resident was told to report the smell of cannabis directly to the police
3. confirmed the HO had been monitoring the ASB case and agreed it would remain open
4. asked for details of the police mediation so it could look at follow up action if necessary
5. confirmed the HO supported the resident with his online housing application and had asked for an advocate to help the resident with the bidding process
The resident told the landlord he was not happy with the response in a letter dated 10 April 2024. The resident contacted us on 4 June 2024 and confirmed the landlord had not responded. On 11 July 2024, we asked the landlord to escalate the complaint and respond by 18 July 2024.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 17 July 2024. It said:
1. it would only investigate issues in the 12 months prior to his complaint so had looked at reports from February 2023
2. it opened an ASB case in December 2023 when the HO spoke to him and the alleged perpetrator
3. the HO continued to monitor the case, and several attempts of contact had been made to the resident when voicemails were left
4. the resident had confirmed things had settled down, but the HO agreed to keep the case open, and the resident was told to report illegal activity to the police and provide the landlord with any log numbers
5. further incidents were reported in April, May, and June 2023 when the HO spoke to the resident and the alleged perpetrator and asked them not to disturb residents nearby
6. recordings had not highlighted excessive noise, or noise at unsociable hours, and that it can be difficult to gather sufficient evidence to take tenancy enforcement action when the incidents are intermittent
7. reports of ASB had been investigated in line with its ASB policy
8. the HO had supported the resident in the housing application process and asked for further assistance in the bidding process
9. acknowledged there were occasions when the resident had called in and a call back was requested from the HO, however when there are high call volumes, the waiting time is longer, and so improvements had been made to incoming communications
10. acknowledged the failures with the complaint handling and offered £400 for the delays and the time, trouble and inconvenience caused
The resident referred his complaint to us on 29 July 2024. He confirmed it was regarding the landlord’s:
1. handling of further reports of ASB and communication with the HO
2. response to his request for support in moving home
As a resolution he said he wanted the landlord to:
1. resolve the ASB resolved
2. consider his vulnerabilities and provide better accessibility to communication
3. pay the compensation it had offered in its final complaint response

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has referred to the impact the situation has had on his health. Although we can consider the impact the situation has had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability for damage to health. These matters are best suited to an insurance claim or court. Any compensation offer will be assessed in line with our remedies guidance. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, he should seek legal advice.
A previous determination made by us in August 2023 (reference 202111250) related to previous reports of noise disturbance and a request for a transfer. This report will not reconsider any information linked to this report and will focus on events from February 2023 to the final complaint response of 17 July 2024.

Reports of ASB and communication from the HO

The landlord’s ASB procedure states it will:
1. complete a vulnerability assessment matrix (VAM) and categorise the case as red or green when an initial report of ASB is received
2. contact the complainant within 1 working day for red cases and 5 working days for green cases to gain more detail
3. assess any vulnerabilities of the complainant or perpetrator that may impact the situation and the action that may be taken
4. investigate the ASB through various methods such as interviews, diary sheets and NME
5. keep complainants and alleged perpetrators updated
It is not our role to establish whether someone has committed ASB, but to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. We will determine whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, considering its own policies and procedures.
The resident reported neighbour noise to the landlord in February 2023. The landlord visited the resident and neighbour and agreed the neighbour would not use running equipment past a certain time. This was an appropriate response from the landlord.
There is no evidence the landlord completed a VAM on the resident, or that it assessed his or the neighbours vulnerabilities. As the resident was known to be vulnerable, it was important the landlord understood how he was being affected by the reported noise. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the ASB procedure.
The landlord installed NME on 1 March 2023 to record the noise reported by the resident. This was appropriate and in line with the investigation methods of the ASB procedure. The NME did not pick up any noise, however the landlord wrote to the neighbour as a reminder to be courteous. This was reasonable.
On 1 April 2023 the police were called following reports of verbal insults by the neighbour. The landlord was notified of this on 11 April 2023. It visited both parties the following day, when it was confirmed the police had arranged mediation. The landlord agreed to monitor the case. This was appropriate because it was consistent with the landlord’s policy.
On 26 April 2023, the resident and his MP contacted the landlord to raise an issue with noise which they believed was coming from the shower pump in the flat above. The MP asked if it could be inspected but there is no evidence the landlord requested this. While it was not clear if this was a contributing factor to the noise, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to inspect the shower to determine if there was an issue that needed rectifying. There is no evidence the landlord requested this.
Further incidents of loud banging, intimidation and a ‘loud machine noise’ were reported in May 2023 when the resident said it was waking him up. The landlord issued an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) to the neighbour. This was an appropriate intervention to reduce the risk of similar situations.
There were no further incidents reported until 10 August 2023 when the MP reported alleged racial abuse that had left the resident ‘very upset’. Although the police were notified, the MP suggested a joined-up approach between the police and the landlord. The landlord advised there were no previous reports of racial abuse and confirmed it had contacted the police to arrange a joint visit. There is no evidence the landlord completed a VAM with the resident following the incident. This was unreasonable because it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy and was a missed opportunity to assess the impact on him.
On 23 August 2023 the resident visited the landlord’s offices stating he had not had any contact from the HO regarding the joint visit. The HO said it was still waiting on a response from the police and asked him to keep a log of events and any recordings. There is no evidence of a joint visit by the police and the landlord. This is a record keeping failure and does not allow us to assess if the landlord responded in line with its obligations.
There is no evidence of any further incidents from the resident until 20 December 2023 when the landlord opened an ASB case for alleged drug activity. The landlord contacted the resident in line with procedure, however the resident asked for it to be picked up after Christmas.
The landlord contacted the resident on 5 January 2024 for an update and left him a voicemail. The evidence confirms the landlord continued to monitor the case and tried repeatedly to contact the resident through to 7 March 2024, albeit unsuccessfully. The landlord’s actions were appropriate and in line with procedure.
Following a complaint on 14 March 2023 the landlord visited the resident on 26 March 2024 when he raised issues with bins, smoking of cannabis and noise from the neighbour above. The landlord addressed the bins directly with the neighbour, signposted the resident to the police regarding the alleged drug activity, and confirmed the NME did not evidence excessive noise. It said it would continue to monitor the situation. This was appropriate as the landlord did not have any further evidence in which it could take enforcement action. The above was confirmed in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response.
On 29 April 2024 the resident reported noise coming from an exercise machine. It was at this point the landlord completed a VAM with the resident. It was not appropriate that the ASB case had been opened 4 months before this was done. Further, from the evidence provided to us, the VAM did not confirm the case categorisation. This was a further failing by the landlord as it was not in line with procedure.
On receipt of further reports of ASB from the neighbour in May 2024, the landlord contacted the neighbour, but the allegations were denied. With no evidence to support the allegations, the landlord reminded the neighbour to be courteous. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord continued to monitor the case, and no further reports were made until 21 June 2024. The landlord advised the resident that it had sent a letter to the neighbour about the noise, and to keep a log of events.
The landlord’s final complaint response focussed on events from when an ASB case was opened in December 2023, yet the evidence provided by the landlord confirms the resident had been reporting incidents from February 2023. The landlord did not refer to any of these, or the actions taken. This was unreasonable. The landlord did not demonstrate an effective investigation, nor did it identify any failures or learning.
In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB and communication from the HO. This is because the landlord:
1. did not complete a VAM in line with its procedure at various stages throughout reports of ASB and alleged racial abuse, this failure meant it could not reasonably determine the level of risk faced by the resident considering his vulnerabilities
2. did not assess the vulnerabilities of the neighbour which may have contributed to the behaviours reported
3. did not set the resident’s expectations by advising what action it could take against the neighbour for the nature of incidents reported (as per our spotlight on noise complaints, published in October 2022)
4. did not request an inspection of the shower pump which was thought to be a contributing factor to noise nuisance
5. did not evidence the outcome or any actions associated with the alleged racial abuse and the work with the police
6. failed to assess the full timeline from when ASB was reported by the resident
7. did not demonstrate a thorough investigation into the reports of communication issues with the HO

Request for a move to another property.

The landlord operates a choice-based lettings process which is operated by another social housing provider. The landlord responsibilities within this process are to assist residents in completing an application. The assessment of the transfer application and decision-making process is not part of the landlord’s responsibilities.
On 3 February 2023 following a report of ASB, the resident’s MP asked what support the landlord could give him regarding a move. The landlord confirmed it would visit him to determine what support it could give. This was appropriate and in line with its responsibilities.
The HO assisted the resident in completing the online housing application. Furthermore, the HO recognised that the resident may need additional support with the bidding process and so requested help from a support worker. This was reasonable as the landlord responded to the resident’s individual needs.
The landlord advised the resident the application process is managed by another organisation and as such any complaints about the process should be directed to them. This was appropriate signposting by the landlord.
In summary, the landlord has evidenced that it met its responsibilities in terms of assisting with the completion of the online application. In addition, it requested additional support for the resident through the bidding process and provided correct signposting advice. As such a finding of no maladministration is appropriate.

Complaint handling

The landlord operated a 2-stage complaint process. The policy states it would acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Regardless of what stage the complaint is at, if any extension is needed, this would be communicated to the resident.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 1 February 2024. The landlord did not log the complaint. This was not appropriate and was a missed opportunity to respond to the resident’s complaint earlier than it did.
The resident contacted us on 14 March 2024 and asked for help in raising his complaint with the landlord. This should not have been necessary.
The landlord logged the complaint but did not acknowledge receipt with the resident. Further, the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 5 April 2024. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with policy.
While the landlord confirmed the action taken on each issue raised, it did not address its failure to log the complaint raised on 1 February 2024. This was unreasonable as it meant it did not identify any learning or apologise for any impact the delay had on the resident.
Further failures occurred when the resident told the landlord he was unhappy with the response. Due to a lack of response, he contacted us for help in escalating his complaint. This was unreasonable and delayed the process for referring the complaint to us for investigation.
We asked the landlord to escalate the complaint and respond by 18 July 2024. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 17 July 2024. This was appropriate as it was within the allocated timeframe.
As part of the stage 2 investigation, the landlord reviewed its complaint handling. It highlighted several service failures for which it apologised, and in acknowledgement of the impact on the resident and the time and trouble spent pursuing the complaint, it offered £400 compensation. This was reasonable and more than what we would expect for a finding of maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged its failings and made some attempt to put things right.
As such and considering the above, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and communication from the Housing Officer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a move to another property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. write a letter of apology to the resident for the failures highlighted
2. pay £150 for the impact on the resident caused by its failure to recognise the distress caused when reporting ASB
3. pay the compensation directly to the resident and not offset it against any debt that may be owed. The landlord should provide us with evidence to confirm the compensation has been paid
4. contact the neighbour to arrange an inspection of the shower and confirm any findings with the resident

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £400 that was offered in the final complaint response. The Ombudsman’s findings of reasonable redress for the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling are made on the basis that this compensation is paid.
The landlord should contact the resident to discuss his preferred method of communication.