Southern Housing (202310209)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310209

Southern Housing Group Limited

17 May 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 way the landlord responded to the residents’:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB):
2. Request for compensation;
3. Complaint.

Background and summary of events

The residents are secure tenants in a 2 bedroom flat that is owned by the landlord. They moved into the property in January 2008 and the records indicate they are an elderly couple. As English is not their first language, the residents were represented during their complaint by a family member, who also lives in the property. The representative will be referred to in this report as Mr A.
On 19, 21 and 23 June 2022, the residents contacted the landlord to report that their neighbour had been playing “very loud music” and that she had been “banging” and “screaming”. They added that this had been “going on intermittently for over 10 years”. The neighbour will be referred to in this report as Ms G.
In November 2022, the residents and other neighbours made further reports of ASB and noise nuisance relating to Ms G. In response to a request by one of the neighbours for a Community Trigger, the landlord attended a multi-agency meeting on 30 November 2022 where the police, local authority and representatives of Ms G’s support services were also in attendance. The landlord has not provided us with a copy of the meeting minutes. However, the records indicate that, during the meeting, it was agreed the landlord would explore the possibility of issuing Ms G with an injunction. It also stated it could consider installing CCTV in the communal area and would liaise with the local authority’s “target hardening lead” to assess for any security improvements that could be made to the block.
The landlord visited the residents on 6 December 2022 with the police, where Mr A was also in attendance. Mr A told it that the residents felt like “prisoners in their own home” and that he had to “chaperone” his mother in and out of the building because she felt afraid Ms G would “attack” her. On the same day, the landlord tried to visit Ms G with her support worker to discuss the reports of ASB but she did not allow it access.
On 9 December 2022, Mr A contacted the landlord to report that Ms G had been “dumping rubbish” opposite the residents’ front door and other communal areas “almost on a daily basis”. He asked the landlord to send a cleaning team without delay. The landlord responded on the same day to say it was aware of the situation and had raised a job to clear the rubbish. It added that it had also arranged a repair to the communal light.
The landlord contacted Mr A on 13 December 2022 to ask if the residents had experienced any further ASB. Mr A responded on 14 December 2022 to confirm they had not witnessed any ASB from Ms G over the past few days. He added that the rubbish in the communal area had been cleared. The landlord thanked him for the update and said it had issued Ms G with an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement (ABA) the previous week. It said that the police had also issued her with a Community Protection Notice Warning (CPNW) at the same time and that the actions appeared to have had the desired effect.
On 16 and 17 January 2023, Mr A wrote to the landlord to say that the residents had heard “objects being smashed” and that this had coincided with Ms G leaving her flat. He also reported that they had heard her “shouting with filthy words” and then noticed she “had dumped a heap of rubbish on the steps outside the communal area”. Mr A attached a video recording and stated that the landlord had so far not taken any effective action.
The landlord responded on 18 January 2023 to say that Ms G had breached both her CPNW and ABA. However, due to the vulnerabilities associated with the case, it needed to ensure it was working closely with other agencies. It added that it had to exhaust all non-legal avenues before considering legal action. It stated that the likely next steps would be applying for an injunction and added that legal proceedings could be lengthy, especially where there were vulnerabilities involved.
On 25 January 2023 the landlord wrote again to Mr A to inform him that Ms G was away and would be receiving the “support and assistance she needed”. It stated that, due to Ms G’s vulnerabilities, it had to put a hold on any further legal action. It appreciated the impact the situation was having on Mr A’s family and said it was considering other long term solutions to deal with the matter.
Mr A sent the landlord a stage 1 complaint on 22 February 2023 on behalf of the residents. This stated that:
1. Ms G had mental health issues that caused her to commit ASB and “criminal behaviour” that was “intimidating” and “dangerous”;
2. Due to the landlord’s failure to move Ms G into supported housing, it had left the public at risk from mental and physical harm;
3. His family had experienced physical and mental trauma as a result of the landlord’s failure to act;
4. The landlord had not followed through with the actions it had agreed during the Community Trigger meeting;
5. The landlord had ignored several emails he had sent it from October 2022 to February 2023;
6. Ms G had thrown dinner plates and glasses from her window on 16 January 2023 and threatened a member of the household on 19 January 2023. These were just 2 examples of her intimidating and dangerous behaviour dating back to 2011.
7. The landlord had not honoured its commitment to:
  1. Contact the residents weekly for 2 to 4 weeks and then fortnightly;
  2. Liaise with the local authority’s target hardening lead to consider whether to install CCTV;
8. The landlord had ignored the residents’ requests to clear Ms G’s rubbish for weeks;
9. He wanted Ms G to be moved into supported housing;
10. He wanted financial compensation for the impact his neighbour’s ASB had had on his family.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 March 2023 and then informed Mr A on 9 March 2023 that it required an extension and would send him a response by 4 April 2023.
On 17 March 2023 the residents called the landlord and police to report that Ms G was “smashing” their front door. The police wrote to Mr A on 28 March 2023 to say that the incident had not met “the evidential threshold for a charge”. It added that, following a meeting with a mental health specialist, Ms G’s behaviour was deemed to be ASB and “not entirely as a result of her mental health”. The police advised that the responsibility for moving Ms G fell to the landlord.
The landlord sent Mr A its stage 1 response on 6 April 2023. This stated that:
1. It had opened 3 cases over the previous 2 years in response to complaints from the residents and their neighbours about Ms G’s behaviour. It could not disclose Ms G’s personal circumstances. However, it had sought legal advice around the concerns raised about her ASB and it had put appropriate sanctions in place. This had resulted in an improvement in her behaviour.
2. Around the time it had agreed to explore additional security measures, the case officer had left and no handover took place. It apologised for the oversight and stated that its ASB officer would liaise with the local authority by 19 April 2023.
3. It was sorry if Mr A felt unsupported and informed him that he could refer himself to Victim Support. It added that, as it was a confidential service, it was unable to make a referral on his behalf.
4. It had asked the ASB officer to provide fortnightly updates starting from 17 April 2023.
5. It was actively working with Ms G’s support team, the police and other partner agencies to facilitate a move to alternative accommodation. It added that there was “still some way to go with this” and Ms G had the right to refuse the offer.
6. If Ms G turned down the offer of a move, it would have stronger grounds to “go down the legal route”. It assured Mr A it was working hard to find a long term solution and would keep him updated on progress.
7. With regard to his request for compensation, it was a social landlord and not directly responsible for the actions of its tenants. It was therefore not in a position to offer any compensation.
8. It had contacted the local authority’s noise team who stated it would respond to the reports of loud music it had received.
The landlord wrote to Mr A on 19 April 2023 to say it had made contact with the local authority with regard to the “target hardening” of the residents’ property, and that it would contact him directly.
It wrote to him again on 2 May 2023 to say that it has been a while since it had received any ASB reports and hoped that this was because the situation had improved. It stated that it was continuing to seek alternative accommodation for Ms G.
Mr A wrote to the landlord on 7 May 2023 to say that it had not addressed the concerns he had raised about the impact of the ASB. He said that he and his family had experienced physical and mental trauma as a result of its failure to properly respond to his ASB reports.
Following a telephone call with Mr A on 12 May 2023, the landlord wrote to him on the same day. It thanked him for speaking with it about his request to escalate his complaint. It confirmed that his complaint was that:
1. The landlord had not properly addressed some of the points he had raised in his initial complaint;
2. He wanted compensation;
3. He wanted Ms G to be moved.
The local authority carried out an inspection of the residents’ property on 15 May 2023 and recommended some security works through its community safety target hardening scheme. These included several measures to secure the front door.
The landlord wrote to Mr A on 22 May 2023 to say it had spoken to Ms G the previous week with regard to the nuisance the residents had reported. It confirmed that Ms G had denied that she had caused any disturbance. However, the landlord stated it had “warned” her nonetheless. It is not clear from the records whether this was a caution or a formal warning.
On 16 June 2023, the landlord sent Mr A its stage 2 response. It stated that:
1. It was sorry Mr A’s family felt trapped in their own home. However, it was not responsible for Ms G’s behaviour and could not issue compensation on that basis.
2. It recognised there were failings in how it had dealt with the residents’ case.
3. It apologised for failure to provide updates after a member of staff had left at short notice.
4. It confirmed it had agreed to move Ms G. It acknowledged there had been a delay in reaching this outcome but explained it only made decisions to move residents as a last resort.
5. It understood that security improvement works to the residents’ property had been completed by the local authority on 25 May 2023.
6. It acknowledged that the residents were unhappy it had not installed CCTV. However, given it had decided to move Ms G, it felt this would no longer be a good use of resources. Since reflecting on its decision, it wanted to carry out a further review on whether or not to install CCTV and would provide an update by 3 July 2023.
7. It wanted to discuss with the residents what support was available and would call Mr A to discuss this by 30 June 2023.
8. It offered the residents £400 as a “goodwill gesture”, in recognition of “the challenging situation” they had been in.

Events following conclusion of the complaints process

Mr A wrote to the landlord on 22 June 2023 to say he was not satisfied with its response and would approach the Ombudsman. He stated that the landlord had a responsibility to prevent Ms G’s abuse by responding effectively. He stated that its failure to explore sufficient safety measures had put his family “at risk of serious harm” and added that it seemed obvious the appropriate course of action would be to rehouse Ms G as soon as possible.
On 5 July 2023 the landlord informed Mr A that its Lettings team was actively looking for suitable alternative accommodation for Ms G. It stated that, after further discussion, it had agreed to install CCTV in the communal areas and would contact him by 19 July 2023 to agree a plan. It added that its records showed it had taken a number of steps to prevent further incidents. However, it wanted to reconsider its offer of compensation and stated it would contact him by 21 July 2023 with the outcome of its review.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 July 2023 with a revised offer of £745 compensation, which it broke down as follows:
1. £350 for its failure on multiple occasions to remove rubbish left by Ms G in the communal areas;
2. £15 for its failure to call Mr A to discuss the residents’ complaint;
3. £30 for failing to keep in regular contact with the residents.
4. £350 for not installing CCTV earlier, which would have given the residents some reassurance.

It added that it did not consider there was failure in not moving Ms G earlier. This was because it worked in partnership with other agencies to resolve ASB and it was best practice to resolve ASB so tenants could remain in their homes, wherever possible.

Following a discussion with Mr A on 18 August 2023, the landlord wrote to him on 29 August 2023. It stated that:
1. It wanted to apologise for the harm his family experienced because of its “service failures”.
2. It appreciated that if CCTV had been installed “years ago”, it would have helped his family feel safer. However, it had limited funds for CCTV and was only able to fund its use in a minority of cases.
3. It wanted to offer the residents a further £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in organising the target hardening measures.
4. It had worked with various partners over several years, including the police, to tackle the problems with Ms G. It felt the actions it had taken had often been effective in stopping the problems at the time. It appreciated the residents had not been involved in all the cases, therefore may not have been aware of the full range of actions it had taken.
5. It offered additional compensation of £50 for the time and trouble in pursuing the complaint, which made a revised total of £1145.
The records show that Ms G signed a tenancy for alternative accommodation on 19 November 2023 and had moved out of the resident’s block on, or before, that date.
Mr A wrote to the Ombudsman on 25 January 2024. He stated that the landlord had not been willing to install CCTV, had repeatedly failed to address his concerns about the danger to his family. In addition, it had failed to fully cooperate with the police to move Ms G and failed to take adequate fire safety measures.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s policies and procedures

The tenancy agreement states that the tenant agrees to not cause a nuisance or annoyance to a neighbour or other tenants of the landlord. They also agree not to play or allow to be played any radio, television or music so loudly that it causes a nuisance or annoyance to a neighbour. Although the landlord did not provide a copy of Ms G’s tenancy agreement, it is assumed the obligations, as set out in the resident’s tenancy agreement, would mirror those of all the tenancies held by tenants of the same landlord
The landlord’s ASB policy states that its response to ASB will be proportionate to the extent of harm caused. It will undertake a risk assessment on the potential harm of the ASB on the person making a report when residents report ASB and will consider the risks to the resident. It will work with other agencies to protect the resident’s immediate safety, provide them with support, investigate the ASB and take action to stop further incidents. Furthermore, it states that it will tell the resident who will handle their ASB case and agree an action plan with them. Although it does not list what measures it uses, it states that it will use a range of preventative measures, which includes the full range of tools and powers available to it in the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
The landlord’s compensation policy provides for discretionary payments in recognition that every case is different, and to take into account the severity of the issue. It states there is no limit in terms of the amount that can be paid, but that the payment must be agreed by a senior manager. It states that, if the resident is not satisfied with the compensation offered, they can ask the landlord to review the offer.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It acknowledges stage 1 complaints within 3 working days and aims to send a response within 10 working days. If the landlord is unable to respond within this time, it can request an extension of an additional 10 working days. If the resident wishes to escalate their complaint, the landlord will contact them within 5 working days t and confirm its understanding of the issues and outcomes the resident is seeking, It states it will contact the resident with the outcome of its stage 2 investigation within 20 working days. If it requires more time to respond, it will explain why and inform the resident of the expected timescale.

Scope of investigation

Mr A has stated that the ASB his family experienced has caused them mental and physical harm. While the Ombudsman extends every sympathy to the household for the impact the situation has had on its health, the Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process. They are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim. While we cannot consider injury to health, we have considered whether the resident was caused distress or inconvenience as a result of any failings by the landlord.
The Service sympathises with the personal impact of Ms G’s ASB on Mr A, which he has described throughout the complaint. However, as Mr A does not have a direct contractual relationship with the landlord, the Service will be unable to consider these issues. It will be appropriate for the Ombudsman to consider the elements of the complaint that directly impact the residents.
Mr A has suggested that the ASB had been an ongoing for 11 years. While this is not disputed, the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. 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. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focused on the period from June 2022 onwards. This is when the evidence shows the resident made reports of ASB that led him to raise a stage 1 complaint.
Mr A has also raised concerns about the landlord’s delay in paying compensation. As this did not from part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, this is not something that the Service can investigate at this stage as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this report. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved. They may then approach the Ombudsman if they remain dissatisfied. A recommendation has been made below in this regard.

Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise

It is acknowledged that the ASB the residents have reported has had a profound impact on them. However, when considering complaints relating to ASB, it is not the role of the Service to reach a decision on whether they have occurred. Instead, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. This report will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action and followed good practice.
It is recognised that Ms G was vulnerable and that her vulnerabilities may have contributed to her behaviour. It was appropriate that the landlord tried to work with her, and her support services, to help her modify her behaviour and find an appropriate and permanent solution. It was evident that steps the landlord took were effective for certain periods of time. However, the records indicate her behaviour was intermittent and that there was a pattern where the ASB ceased and then re-started. Given the long history of ASB, it was therefore appropriate that the landlord took a robust enough approach to address Ms G’s tenancy breaches. It is recognised that the action a landlord takes must be proportionate and it was correct that it was sensitive to Ms G’s vulnerabilities. However, landlords should also give consideration, at an early stage, to the impact ASB is having on other residents. The failure to do so means residents are left to live in an environment that is profoundly distressing for an excessive amount of time.
The landlord acted appropriately by working closely with partner agencies and support services to take steps to address the residents’ ASB reports. The evidence shows that, following the stage 1 complaint, the landlord appointed a single point of contact (SPOC), who liaised regularly with the police, local authority and health services, along with the residents and other neighbours who were reporting ASB. It is not disputed that, prior to the stage 1 complaint, the landlord’s communication was lacking. The records indicate that this was due to a member of staff leaving at short notice and the landlord’s failure to properly hand over the case. The landlord acknowledged these failings in its complaint responses and offered compensation for its poor communication, which was appropriate.
The landlord has demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to ensure it sent timelier responses and regular updates. The evidence shows its communication with the residents improved significantly following its stage 1 response. The landlord has also demonstrated that it made efforts to speak to Ms G, although her unwillingness to engage at times was beyond its control.
It was appropriate that the SPOC made reasonable efforts to appropriately manage the residents’ expectations. For example, the records show that the landlord was clear on a number of occasions that moving Ms G to alternative accommodation would not be a quick process. Furthermore, it acted appropriately when it informed the residents that, despite stating at the Community Trigger meeting that it would seek an injunction, new information relating to Ms G’s vulnerabilities meant legal action had to be put on hold. The landlord has demonstrated that it’s communication was transparent, and that it took steps to provide clear explanations for its actions.
The landlord’s decision to offer Ms G a move following a long history of ASB reports by the residents and other neighbours was reasonable, and taken in consultation with partner agencies. The landlord did not provide any records to evidence its correspondence with housing providers. However, there is internal correspondence that shows the landlord’s lettings team was actively seeking alternative housing. Furthermore, the records show that Ms G had moved out in November 2023. The landlord informed the residents in its stage 1 response on 6 April 2023 that it was working with partner agencies to offer Ms G a move to alternative accommodation. Given there would have been a limited supply of suitable housing and that the landlord had to meet its obligations with regard to Ms G’s vulnerabilities, it cannot be criticised for delays in facilitating a move. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that the delays were avoidable. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the actions and the time it took for the landlord to arrange a suitable move were reasonable in the circumstances.
The ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the Act) states that it is good practice for agencies to assess the risk of harm to the victim, and any potential vulnerabilities, when they receive a complaint about ASB. This should be the starting point of a case management approach to dealing with ASB complaints. There is no evidence the landlord undertook a risk assessment, which was a departure from its policy. Given the residents were regularly reporting the impact the ASB was having on them, it would have been reasonable for it to have formally assessed the risk to the household. This would have helped the landlord identify any appropriate support it could provide or referrals it could make.
The same Act states that the terms of an acceptable behaviour agreement (ABA) should be discussed with the perpetrator before they are drafted and signed to encourage compliance. The evidence shows that, in December 2022, the landlord hand delivered an ABA to Ms G’s address. This was at the same time as the police delivered a Community Protection Notice Warning (CPNW). There is no indication the landlord had discussed an ABA with Ms G beforehand or that it had asked her to sign it at any point. Furthermore, it is unclear why the landlord had decided to duplicate a similar action that the police had taken. This was an unnecessary use of resources and the approach could have been interpreted as heavy handed. It also demonstrates a lack of effective coordination between the two agencies. That the landlord had not followed the correct process for issuing the ABA would have contributed to its ineffectiveness in having the desired outcome.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that the landlord will tell the resident who will handle their ASB case and agree an action plan with them. The landlord has not provided a copy of an action plan and there is no evidence it had sought to agree one with the residents. A comprehensive and meaningful action plan is an opportunity to agree a preferred method of contact, and arrange convenient dates and times when the landlord would update residents. It is also a chance for the landlord to manage residents’ expectations in terms of what it is able to do and to set realistic objectives. A plan can set a formal contact arrangement and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, helps form a better relationship between resident and landlord. Action plans can also be reviewed regularly, to ensure actions are taken in a timely manner, and new ones are set, as necessity arises.
The records show that, during the Community Trigger meeting on 30 November 2022, the landlord had agreed to make a referral to the local authority’s target hardening lead. This was with the intention of making improvements to the residents’ security following his ASB reports. It was not until 19 April 2023 that the landlord informed the residents it had made contact with the local authority regarding the target hardening of his property. An action plan would have helped the landlord monitor this agreed action and could have resulted in a timelier referral being made. That it took the landlord around 5 months to contact the local authority, and given the level of distress the residents had stated the ASB was causing them, the delay in making the referral was a failing.
The landlord acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in organising the target hardening measures and offered £350 compensation in recognition of this. However, it was not until over 2 months after the conclusion of the complaint process that it took these steps. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not recognise the failing at the time of the complaint and that it failed to appropriately assess the impact on the residents at the time.
It is noted that the target hardening inspection of 15 May 2023 made recommendations to improve the security to the residents’ front door but did not consider it necessary at the time to install CCTV cameras. Although the records show that CCTV was discussed at the Community Trigger meeting, the landlord said it would consider it but did not give a definite undertaking that it would install CCTV. The landlord is entitled to rely on the outcome of inspections carried out by appropriate professionals, which in this case was the local authority’s target hardening team.
Furthermore, as the request for CCTV was linked to Ms G’s ASB, and it had been decided that the landlord would seek to move her to alternative accommodation, the decision not to install CCTV at the time was reasonable. In light of the fact there was no evidence the resident had raised any concerns other than those linked to the behaviour of Ms G, the landlord cannot be criticised for considering its budgetary constraints against the appropriateness of installing a CCTV system. It was also appropriate that the landlord later reviewed its position and, as a result, agreed to install CCTV in the communal areas. This demonstrates it had taken the residents’ views on board and had exercised its discretion to provide the family with greater reassurance.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that there were failings in how it communicated with the residents and apologised for these. It also offered £400 compensation, which it revised twice following the end of the complaints process, to £745 and £1145 respectively. This was after it had acknowledged further failings, which it had not covered in its stage 2 response. While it was appropriate for the landlord to reconsider its position, the Ombudsman cannot regard the offer as reasonable redress. This is because the offers were made after the residents had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Furthermore, the landlord made reasonable efforts to put things right only when the residents spent further time pursuing their complaint, and after they had approached the Service. We have therefore made a finding of maladministration. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the revised financial offer was reasonable and therefore we will not be making a further order of compensation. The way the landlord handled the residents’ request for compensation is assessed in the following section of this report.

Compensation

The landlord’s compensation policy allows for the resident to ask for a review of the compensation it has offered. However, the landlord acknowledged some of its failings in its stage 2 response of 16 June 2023 and offered £400, which it stated was a “goodwill gesture”. Furthermore, this was in recognition of the “challenging situation” the residents had been in. The offer may have been well intentioned; however, by framing its offer in this way, the landlord failed to acknowledge and accept responsibility for its service failure and the resulting distress and inconvenience. Consequently, its offer was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case.
Furthermore, the offer came across as confusing and arbitrary, and the landlord did not properly clarify how it was linked to its compensation policy. In its stage 1 response, it told the residents that it was a social landlord and “not directly responsible for the actions of its tenants”. However, in its stage 2 response, the landlord appears to offer the residents compensation for distress caused by the actions of Ms G, rather than the landlord’s failings. It is unclear why the landlord did not instead make an offer in recognition of the failings it had acknowledged. In this way, the landlord omitted to take into account the impact its own actions had on the residents.
It was inappropriate that the residents had to spend further time and trouble pursuing the matter before the landlord properly acknowledged and offered compensation for its failings. This demonstrates that the landlord’s initial investigation was inadequate. For example, it failed during the complaints process to properly consider issues such as its delay in referring to the local authority’s target hardening team or its delay in removing rubbish from the communal areas. It was only until it reviewed its compensation offer that it acknowledged those failings, and offered compensation in recognition of them. That the landlord had to review its response twice following completion of the complaints process before offering compensation it felt was fair and reasonable was a failing in its complaint handling amounting to service failure.
It is also noted that, although the landlord did not identify a failing in the way it responded to requests for CCTV, it offered the resident £350 compensation for not installing it earlier. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. Landlords are expected to apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any failure identified. The evidence shows that the landlord followed the advice of the target hardening team when it decided it was not appropriate to install CCTV at the time. Furthermore, the records show it provided an explanation to the resident for its decision. It then agreed to review its decision, exercised its discretion and overturned its original decision. These actions were reasonable. Given the evidence shows the landlord acted appropriately, it is unclear why it offered compensation in this instance. This further demonstrates an arbitrary approach by the landlord in calculating compensation.

Complaint

The evidence shows that the residents raised their stage 1 complaint on 22 February 2023 and the landlord acknowledged it on 7 March 2023. Furthermore, it failed to acknowledge the delay or to apologise for it. It was inappropriate that the landlord took 8 working days send an acknowledgement. It is recognised that there are times when landlords are dealing with high volumes of correspondence and working through backlogs. However, the landlord should ensure it makes every effort to acknowledge complaints in a timely manner. The Ombudsman has made a recommendation that the landlord reviews its complaints training to emphasise how timely responses are an important factor in working towards a positive outcome.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord responded to the residents’ reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the way the landlord responded to the residents’ request for compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the way the landlord responded to the residents’ complaint.

Reasons

Although the landlord’s responses to the residents’ reports of ASB was reasonable on the whole, it could not demonstrate that it followed up on all the actions from the Community Trigger, that it completed a formal risk assessment or that it agreed an action plan with the resident. Furthermore, it could not evidence why it did not discuss an acceptable behaviour agreement with Ms G, or seek her signature prior to issuing it.
The landlord did not make a final offer of compensation until after the complaints process. In addition, it delayed acknowledging further failings until after it had reviewed its initial offer. Some of the amounts it offered appeared arbitrary and were not linked to any of the failings the landlord had identified.
The landlord took 8 working days to acknowledge the residents’ stage 1 complaint. However, it made reasonable efforts to provide timely responses and to inform them it required more time to complete its investigations.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. If it had not already done so, pay the residents the amount of £1145 compensation it had offered following its stage 2 response, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings it had identified.
2. Pay the residents £100 for its failure to offer what it felt was fair and reasonable compensation during the complaints process.
3. Pay the residents £100 for its poor complaint handling.
4. Apologise to the residents for the identified failings in line with this Service’s Remedies Guidance.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report:
1. The landlord to undertake a review of how it calculates compensation, particularly in relation to how its offer reflects the failings identified in its investigations. Specific attention should be paid to how the landlord communicates the reasons for compensation offers with residents and ensuring they are specific to a finding rather than an arbitrary amount. The landlord should also ensure it makes every effort to calculate a fair and reasonable offer of compensation during the complaints process, thus avoiding unnecessary additional time and trouble taken by the resident. The landlord to confirm it has carried out the review and provide details of any changes it has made in its training as a result.
2. The landlord to review its training to all staff dealing with ASB to ensure that any consideration of risk or whether further support is required should be logged as a formal risk assessment. This will ensure that it follows its procedure in all cases. The landlord should also remind staff of the importance of agreeing action plans and discussing acceptable behaviour agreements with resident before issuing them. The landlord to report back to the Service to confirm it has done this.

Recommendations

The landlord to review its training to complaint handling staff, with emphasis on the importance of acknowledging and responding to complaints in a timely manner, with particular focus on reaching positive outcomes and being fully conversant with the landlord’s own complaints process.