Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited (202125549)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125549

Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited

20 December 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour by the resident’s neighbour.
2. Concerns about the conduct of the resident’s son.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is the secure tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 22 October 2021. The property is a 3 bedroom house.
The resident lives at the property with her adult son who is listed on the tenancy agreement as an occupant. The landlord’s records note that her son has been diagnosed with anxiety, depression and aspergers.
The reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) affected the resident and her son in different ways. Therefore, this report has distinguished between them to offer clarity.
On 3 September 2020 the landlord obtained an injunction against the resident’s neighbour. It was to remain in force until 3 September 2021 unless it was revoked by a further order of the court.
On 5 June 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident’s son about an incident where he alleged the neighbour had breached the terms of the injunction. Its position was that the video evidence showed the resident’s son had instigated the incident and therefore it would not pursue a breach against his neighbour. In July the resident’s son emailed the landlord to express his dissatisfaction with its response. The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 August to confirm that the ASB case was closed.
During September and October 2021 the resident’s son made ongoing reports of ASB caused by the neighbour. In September the landlord wrote to the resident to set out its concerns about her son’s wellbeing. It highlighted the potential impact his behaviour could have on her tenancy.
On 5 October 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident’s son to advise that reports of uncorroborated ASB would not be responded to. It referred all parties to mediation on 25 November however, the referral was declined because the case was not suitable.
On 1 December 2021 the resident’s son was arrested following a verbal altercation with the neighbour. A meeting was subsequently held with the resident and her son on 10 February 2022 to discuss the situation. The landlord was concerned about the conduct of the resident’s son towards its staff during the meeting.
On 8 March 2022 the landlord met with the resident to discuss her son’s conduct towards its staff and her neighbour. This included making recordings of her neighbour without consent. During March the resident’s son made complaints about his neighbour’s behaviour towards him. On 16 March the landlord offered to move the resident but this was declined. During April the landlord’s response included consideration of support for the resident’s son’s mental health and use of neighbourhood agreements. Also during April the resident’s son requested that a different officer was assigned to his ASB case.
During June 2022 the resident’s son continued to raise concerns about the landlord’s handling of the ASB case and requested that another member of staff be assigned to the case. On 17 June the resident’s son reported a racially motivated incident caused by his neighbour to the police and landlord. On 14 December the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that its response depended on the outcome of the police investigation. The landlord instructed an independent ASB case review which was carried out on 6 February 2023.
On 24 April 2022 the resident’s son submitted an online complaint about the landlord’s head of service. He said they had failed to put in place a neighbourhood agreement and failed to support him to access mental health services. He asked for an impartial review of the case.
He did not receive a response and contacted this Service for assistance. We wrote to the landlord on 23 June 2022 to ask that it provide a response by 7 July however, it failed to do so. We wrote to the landlord again on 4 October and requested it provide a response by 12 October.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 12 October 2022, the main points were as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay in its response.
2. It set out a summary of its handling of the injunction granted in September 2020 and the subsequent alleged breach.
3. It acknowledged that the resident’s son had continued to submit ASB reports including harassment and “non-consensual” video/phone recording.
4. The neighbour had made counter allegations about the resident’s son, including videoing children, harassment and verbal abuse.
5. Both parties had been referred for mediation in 2021 however “both parties failed to meet.” “Tit for tat” reports continued from all parties which could not be pursued because they could not be independently corroborated.
6. On 17 June 2022 the resident’s son reported that his neighbour had called him a “simian.” He had provided video evidence of the incident and reported it to the police. The matter had been escalated to the crown prosecution service. It would wait until the police had concluded their investigation before considering what action it should take.
7. It had spoken to the resident and agreed to arrange a multi-agency meeting with the resident, her son and the police.
8. It did not uphold complaint.
On 12 October 2022 the resident’s son emailed the landlord to set out his dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response and requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The main points were:
1. It had not provided an explanation for why it did not respond to the complaint in June.
2. His neighbour’s behaviour grew “increasingly volatile” when the injunction was removed.
3. On 20 March 2021 his neighbour “rallied” other residents while accusing him of being a “pedophile” and for “filming children.” He felt the neighbour was trying to get a reaction from him to be able to use it as a counter allegation.
4. He had become depressed but when he advised the landlord that he was on the verge of a “psychotic episode” it ignored him.
5. He set out the ongoing issues he was having with his neighbour.
6. His ASB officer had “colluded” with another officer when they sent the resident an email where they attempted to sway police decision making.
7. He had “zero faith” in his ASB officer and believed her ongoing involvement in the case would be “detrimental to his wellbeing.”
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 23 March 2023, as follows:
1. Discussions took place with the resident’s son over the phone on 2 March and by email on 10 and 17 March followed by a discussion about its draft stage 2 complaint response on 23 March.
2. They had agreed it would respond to the complaint outside of normal timescales to allow for an external independent case review by consultants and via the community trigger to take place.
3. It asserted its desire to “reset” its relationship with the resident’s son.
4. It acknowledged that the resident’s son had submitted a complaint on 22 April 2022. It apologised that a formal response was not provided.
5. The stage 2 complaint was allocated to the head of service which should not have happened because he was named in the complaint. It was reallocated and the decision made that the review would include an external independent review. Its purpose was to provide reassurance that it took the complaint seriously.
6. It had removed a ‘pop up’ which requested that staff only speak to the resident as the tenant, and not to her son. This followed a meeting with the resident and her brother on 29 July where it discussed concerns about the resident’s son’s conduct.
7. In retrospect, it took the view it should speak jointly with the resident and her son should there be further concerns about his conduct which could impact on her tenancy.
8. It apologised for the email which was sent to the resident in error. It confirmed it had asked for all copies to be recalled and deleted. It acknowledged the distress caused.
9. It confirmed that the ASB officer was changed week ending 10 March. However, the manager and head of service would remain which the resident’s son understood.
10. They had agreed that the resident’s son would report all issues via email to the ASB officer, copying in the resident as the tenant of the property.
11. The independent review suggested that an independent person be involved in the case going forward. However, given the recent change of officer it did not believe this was necessary at that time.
12. 2 community trigger reviews conducted by the local authority had concluded that the processes it followed and actions it had taken were “reasonable.”
13. It reiterated the importance of independent evidence in situations where it was a case of one word against another. It gave the resident’s son advice about his own conduct.
14. It explained that warnings had been issued to the tenants of both properties and set out the reasons why. However, it agreed that it would discuss any concerns about the resident’s son’s behaviour with him and the resident together.
15. The criminal court case against his neighbour was postponed to May 2023. If he were found guilty it would “take action against his partner to seek possession of the property.” However, it was the court’s decision about whether to grant possession.
16. It suggested that a risk assessment be conducted in relation to the court case and possible outcomes.
17. The resident and her son had declined its offer to move them to another property however, the offer remained open should they change their mind. It also reiterated its offer to refer the resident’s son to activities which may provide a distraction from the issue.
18. It acknowledged the resident’s son’s complaint of 3 March that his neighbour was “stalking” him. It said that having considered the evidence it had concluded this was not the case and explained why.
19. It had agreed with the resident that it would deal with the complaint outside of the formal complaints process. However, the response was its stage 2 and final response. It signposted the resident to contact this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
On 11 May 2023 the resident emailed this Service to set out his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. He felt the landlord did not care about racism or danger to life. The complaint became one we could investigate on 16 May 2024.

Events post internal complaints process

On 17 October 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident’s son to confirm that his neighbour had been found guilty of racially aggravated harassment, alarm or distress. It also confirmed that it had approved a request from his neighbour to move and that they would be moving “imminently.”

Assessment and findings

The resident’s tenancy agreement says that she is responsible for the behaviour of every person (including children) living in or visiting her home. She is responsible in her home, on surrounding land, in communal areas and in the locality of her home.
The landlord’s ASB policy in place at the time of the complaint said that:
1. Complainants would be listened to, treated with respect and dignity and it would retain confidentiality when appropriate.
2. It would respond to reports of ASB in a timely manner, based on risk and priority.
3. It operated a “harm centred approach” when dealing with reports of ASB.
4. Where a resident reporting ASB was assessed as vulnerable it would offer a range of support measures as well as signposting to other agencies. Where it identified additional support needs it would make appropriate referrals.
5. It would ensure that cases were investigated thoroughly in a timely manner, that appropriate actions were recorded and that cases were reviewed and monitored regularly, particularly in relation to risk and harm.
6. It would use a wide range of tools and powers to challenge unacceptable behaviour and would decide on a case by case basis which tools and powers were the most appropriate to use.
7. It would take action that was reasonable and proportionate. It would take legal action in cases where early intervention techniques had not been successful and the harmful behaviour was continuing, or where complainants need protection to prevent further ASB incidents from occurring and where the perpetrator was refusing to engage.
8. It would work with its partners, stakeholders, tenants and residents to find solutions to ASB.
Its guidance on managing contact restrictions says that it will communicate any imposed restrictions. It also refers to an appeals procedure to be dealt with by the head of service for the service area restricting contact.
Its complaints procedure defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction however made,” about its “standard of service, actions or lack of action.” It says that:
1. It will provide stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days.
2. Stage 2 complaints will be assigned to a senior manager who will be responsible for it and keeping residents up to date with what is happening.
3. It will provide stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days. If for some reasons it cannot provide a response within 20 working days it will explain why and give the resident a date they will receive it by.
Its compensation policy says it will pay discretionary compensation for failure of service. When deciding the amount of compensation to be paid it will consider the personal impact of its failure.

Scope of the investigation

Although it is noted that there is a long history of ASB reports by the resident’s son, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the recent reports from June 2021 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
This investigation has been provided with evidence regarding events that took place after the landlord issued its final complaint response on 23 March 2023. This includes a phone call from the resident’s son to this Service on 16 April 2024 regarding the appropriateness of the location of a managed move for his neighbour.
In line with the approach set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme this investigation can only assess the landlord’s response to issues raised within the period of the complaint. If the resident’s son remains dissatisfied about the landlord’s response to events that took place after the final response was issued he may wish to enquire with the landlord whether he is within time to make a further formal complaint.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of antisocial behaviour caused by the resident’s neighbour.

Response to reports of ASB.

On 15 June 2021 the landlord emailed the resident’s son regarding an incident which occurred on 9 June during which he alleged that his neighbour breached the terms of the injunction. It said that the video evidence he had provided showed that he had “instigated” the argument with his neighbour and pursued it until his neighbour lost his temper. It said that it had followed its solicitor’s advice to discontinue its application. The resident’s son replied on the same day to deny that he had started the incident and that it had started “well before” the video started.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 12 October 2022 says that the injunction granted in September 2020 was “discharged” following the credibility of evidence provided by the resident.
The details of the alleged breach such as where it occurred, when it was reported and what was alleged by the resident’s son are unclear. This is a record keeping failure. Furthermore, it is unclear if the injunction itself was discharged by the court prior to its original expiry date of 3 September 2021 or whether the landlord simply decided not to pursue the breach leaving the order in place until its natural expiry.
On 2 July 2021 the resident’s son emailed the landlord to report his ongoing concerns. He said he was “too afraid to go outside” and felt “alone and afraid.” There is no evidence that the landlord considered his vulnerability in line with its ASB policy which said it took a harm centred approach. It would have been appropriate for it to have carried out a risk assessment and assess whether further support was appropriate however, there is no evidence that it did so.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s son on 9 July and 3 August 2021 to set out the outcome of its case review. The review failed to consider his vulnerability and its duty under the Equality Act 2010. It is acknowledged that the case was complex and that counter allegations were made by his neighbour. However, its conclusion that it was satisfied with its response was inappropriate for the reasons set out above.
The landlord’s letter to the resident of 10 September 2021 set out that during their meeting on 2 September she had advised she did not feel safe and did not want to leave the house. The resident’s son had said he could not leave to get his medication or go to the shops. The letter set out an appropriate action plan, including offering a move to alternative accommodation, liaising with external agencies including the resident’s son’s care coordinator, and consideration of alternative ways to receive medication and shopping. It also appropriately addressed the counter allegations made against the resident’s son by the neighbour.
Having received further reports of ASB from the resident’s son, the landlord wrote to him on 5 October 2021 to confirm that it could only consider further complaints if they were corroborated by evidence. Given that allegations had been made by both parties which could not be substantiated the landlord’s evidence based approach was reasonable.
On 24 November 2021 the landlord referred both parties to mediation which was appropriately in line with its ASB policy which says it will consider a wide range of tools and powers when responding to reports of ASB. However, considering the criminal aspects of some of the allegations, it was decided that mediation was not appropriate.
On 9 December 2021 an internal email raised concerns that the resident’s son was “fixated” on his neighbour. On 18 February 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident and once again asked her to consider a managed move. It also advised that because the complaints were one word against the other there was little action it could take in terms of enforcement. The landlord’s position was reasonable because it was required to respond to complaints fairly, based on an assessment of the evidence.
In its letter to the resident of 15 March 2022 the landlord confirmed that it had carried out a risk assessment (this investigation has seen an undated risk assessment) and deemed the situation to be “extremely high risk” and was concerned the situation might “escalate and ultimately someone will end up causing significant damage or even injury.” It set out an appropriate action plan regarding its offer to rehouse the resident, asking parties to sign an acceptable behaviour contract and obtaining support from health services for the resident’s son.
The landlord and resident’s son exchanged emails on 3 and 4 April 2022 with regards to a draft neighbourhood agreement to be signed by both parties. However, in its email of 4 April the landlord concluded that the process would not be effective if the resident’s son was not comfortable. It is unclear if the agreement was signed and put in place which is a record keeping failure. However, it was positive that the landlord continued to consider alternative methods to resolve the situation in line with its ASB policy.
On 17 June 2022 the resident’s son emailed the landlord to report that the neighbour had referred to him by a “racial slur” earlier that day which was reported to the police. The landlord failed to respond causing distress which further undermined their relationship. The resident was caused inconvenience when he emailed again on 21 June to chase a response, copying in his councillor.
On 22 June 2022 the landlord’s head of service emailed the resident’s son to offer to meet with him and his mum at its offices. He replied to say he was concerned about the prospect of the meeting because he had no “trust” in the member of staff. It is unclear if the meeting went ahead which is a record keeping failure.
On 4 July 2022 the landlord emailed the resident’s son to advise that it had requested an independent legal review of the case to ensure everything “practical and appropriate” had been done. However, there is no evidence that the review took place therefore the landlord missed an opportunity to satisfy itself and the resident’s son that its response was appropriate. It is noted that the landlord instructed an independent ASB case review which was carried out on 6 February 2023.
On 5 July 2022 the resident’s son emailed the landlord, police and councillor and provided video evidence of the hate incident which took place on 17 June where the neighbour said made a “racial slur.” He then proceeded to verbally abuse the resident’s son. He said he was “living in fear.”
The landlord’s letter to the resident dated 2 August 2022 shows that it met with her and her brother on 29 July. However, there is no evidence that it provided a response to her son regarding the incident directed against him on 17 June. This was inappropriate given the distress caused, the impact on his mental health, the seriousness of the incident. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord updated its risk assessment. Its inaction compounded the resident’s son’s frustrations around a lack of support and continued to undermine their relationship.
The resident’s son’s distress was evident in his email to the landlord of 13 August 2022 when he chased its response and said he had suffered “pain, hardship, agony, isolation and terror.” On 17 August the landlord emailed its response to say it had requested that the risk assessment be updated. While this was a positive step it came 2 months after the incident which was inappropriate. Furthermore, its response did not go far enough to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and how it might support him further.
It did not provide him with a formal response to the incident of 17 June 2022 until its stage 1 complaint response of 12 October, 4 months later. This was unreasonable and showed a lack of regard for the seriousness of the incident, including the racial element, and the detrimental impact it had on the resident.
The landlord’s response itself was reasonable. It was appropriate that it would wait for the police investigation to be concluded before considering what action it might take for breach of tenancy. It was also appropriate that it would hold a multi-agency meeting. However, while this was a positive step it should have done so earlier in the process to carry out a comprehensive assessment of risk. It would also have provided an opportunity to satisfy itself that a joint approach had been taken to ensure all that could be done to reduce risk had been conducted as early in the process as possible. The resident’s son’s email to the landlord dated 20 October 2022 stated that the multi-agency meeting took place the previous day.
On 15 November 2022 the landlord emailed the resident’s son to reiterate its offer of a move and confirm that it was considering target hardening measures. It confirmed that the crown prosecution service was pursuing a conviction against his neighbour. It would write to the resident to set out its proposed response in the event of either outcome in due course. On 16 November the resident’s son replied to confirm that his mother did not wish to move and that he was happy for target hardening measures to be installed. It is unclear exactly what target hardening measures were installed when which is a record keeping failure. However, a photograph of a letterbox flap lock installed on a door has been seen by this investigation.
On 13 December 2022 the landlord issued the resident’s neighbour with a formal warning, setting out the potential consequences for her tenancy should her partner be found guilty. On 14 December it also wrote to the resident to explain the action it might take in relation to the various outcomes of the criminal case. The information provided was appropriate in the circumstances.
The resident’s son emailed the landlord on 4 January 2023 to report a further incident with his neighbour who had verbally abused him while outside the front of the property the day before. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response which was inappropriate. On 10 January the police emailed an update to the landlord regarding incidents reported by the resident’s son on 29 December 2022 and 3 January 2023. It said that the incidents were linked and crimed as harassment/public order offences.
There is no evidence that the landlord contacted either the resident’s son or the neighbour to discuss these new incidents. There is no evidence that risk assessments were updated. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it discussed with the police whether interim ASB tools could be used to prevent further incidents, such as further tenancy warnings or alternative legal measures. The evidence shows that the landlord chose instead to wait for the court case to be concluded. This was inappropriate because it still had a duty to respond to further reports of ASB.
The landlord adhered to its ASB policy because it took proportionate action against parties where there was evidence to do so. It also worked with relevant partner agencies and considered a range of tools to try to resolve what was a complex case. However, its communication with the resident’s son was ineffective which compounded his distress. It is acknowledged that his behaviour was challenging at times. However, the landlord did not adhere to its ASB policy to listen to complainants and treat them with respect and dignity. There were times when it failed to respond to his reports and its inaction exacerbated his lack of trust in its response. It failed to use risk assessments to inform a harm centred approach. This was particularly detrimental to the resident’s son because of his vulnerabilities.

Email of 8 August 2022.

On 8 August 2022 the landlord emailed internal colleagues regarding recordings that had been taken by the resident’s son of his neighbour. It was concerned that the recording was “far too intrusive” and that it could be “an offence of some sort.” The email was also intended for its police colleagues however, it was accidentally sent to the resident instead.
The resident’s son’s email to the landlord of 10 August 2022 said that both he and his mother found the email “shocking and upsetting.” The landlord emailed them both on 15 August to apologise and said it would provide a full response the following day, on 16 August.
The landlord emailed the resident on 17 August 2022 in which it described the incident as “very unfortunate” and reiterated its apology. It confirmed the email was sent in error when it should not have been. It acknowledged the upset caused however, it failed to consider how it might put things right for the resident and action taken to prevent a recurrence. It also failed to acknowledge that its response was issued a day later than agreed.

Conduct of staff.

As the ASB case progressed, the resident’s son became concerned about the conduct of the team handling his reports. In his online complaint to the landlord of 24 April 2022 he set out his dissatisfaction with the response provided by the head of service. He said his inaction left him without support from the mental health team. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response which was inappropriate.
On 29 June 2022 the resident’s son emailed the landlord to ask that the case officer’s manager take over the case. He felt his case officer had sent “threatening” emails regarding his mother’s tenancy. He said they had “broken our faith in our housing association.”
The landlord’s response of 4 July 2022 said that the case officer was working with partner agencies to discuss the most recent incident and to agree an action plan. It therefore felt that a change “would not be helpful.” The resident’s son emailed the landlord on 5 July to ask that it reconsider on the basis that he had made a subject access request and was concerned about the accuracy of some of the case officer’s notes. The landlord’s reply of the same day asserted that the case officers were “experienced and competent.” However, it inappropriately failed to address his concerns about its record keeping.
Following the email incident on 8 August 2022 the resident’s son once again requested a change in officer. In its response of 17 August the landlord said the case officer would remain to ensure consistency and clarity. It said that making a change would mean “duplication of work.”
In his email to this Service, landlord and his councillor on 12 October 2022 the resident’s son described having “zero” faith in his case officer and felt her involvement was “detrimental to his wellbeing.” There is no evidence that the landlord took steps to address the resident’s ongoing concerns prior to its stage 2 complaint response of 23 March 2023. It stage 2 complaint response confirmed that a new case officer has been allocated to the case. It said that the manager and the head of service would remain which was reasonable.
That the landlord did not act sooner to try to understand and resolve the resident’s son’s concerns was unreasonable. The delay caused distress and uncertainty. It also caused a further erosion of his already fragile relationship with the landlord.

Contact restrictions.

In an email to this Service dated 14 June 2022 the resident’s son said that the landlord was not responding to his emails and calls.
In its letter to the resident of 2 August 2022 the landlord confirmed that during their meeting on 29 July they had agreed that all future contact must come directly from the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord had considered if the resident was confident to make reports in her own right. Furthermore, it did not consider the difficulties this may present given that she was not named as a witness in key incidents directed against her son.
A large volume of correspondence had already been exchanged between the landlord and the resident’s son. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to also write to him directly to set out the restrictions it was placing on his contact. That it did not do so was unreasonable because it did not manage his expectations. Furthermore, it did not comply with its managing contact restrictions guidance.
In his email to the landlord of 17 August 2022 the resident’s son said that it had prevented him from submitting reports via its customer phone hub even though the incidents were directed at him. He also added that his mother would have difficulty explaining the actions of his neighbour. He felt that consequently, the landlord was not taking his complaint seriously. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response which was inappropriate. It also further eroded his confidence in the landlord’s response.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 23 March 2023 confirmed that it had removed a ‘pop up’ notification that said it would only speak to the resident and not her son. It confirmed this had been added following the meeting which took place on 29 July 2022.
There is no evidence that the landlord notified the resident and/or her son that it had taken this action which was inappropriate. Its complaint response said that in hindsight it should have spoken to both regarding its concerns about the resident’s son’s behaviour.
It is acknowledged that the situation was complex. However, the landlord’s response demonstrated a lack of clear and consistent decision making in how it handled its contact with the resident’s son. This caused distress and uncertainty which was particularly inappropriate given his vulnerabilities and the landlord’s duty under the Equality Act 2010.

Determination.

The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £400 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to concerns about the conduct of the resident’s son.

On 10 September 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to set out the outcome of its visit to her property on 2 September. This investigation has not seen a copy of the file note of the visit which is a record keeping failure. However, the contents of the letter show that both the resident and her son were present at the meeting.
The letter set out the discussion they had had about the incident which took place on 9 June 2021. The resident’s son admitted that he had been triggered to “breaking point”. The landlord also set out that they had discussed counter allegations made by their neighbour. It advised the resident that her son’s behaviour could put her tenancy at risk. A number of actions were agreed, including that the landlord would liaise with the resident’s son’s care coordinator to determine what, if any, additional support could be offered to him.
Given the resident’s obligations under the terms of her tenancy the landlord’s response was appropriate. Its offer to support the resident’s son with his mental health was appropriately in line with its ASB policy.
On 18 February 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to set out the outcome of its visit to the property on 10 February. This investigation has not seen a copy of the file note of the visit which is a record keeping failure. However, the contents of the letter show that both the resident and resident’s son were present at the meeting. They had discussed the resident’s son’s ongoing reports of ASB. It noted that he had advised that he did not require support with is mental health because he was managing this himself.
On 10 March 2022 the resident’s son emailed the landlord regarding a meeting held at the property on 2 March with him, his mother and the landlord. He said he had not made a racist slur against the officer although he admitted to make a racist slur against the landlord for which he apologised. He said he had sought professional help immediately by phoning a “mental health helpline.”
On 15 March 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to set out the outcome of a meeting held at its offices on 8 March which she had attended with her brother. The local police team were also in attendance. The resident acknowledged that her son’s behaviour on 2 March 2022 was “inappropriate”. During a phone call with the landlord on 10 March he had apologised for his behaviour.
It set out the relevant terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement and warned that her son’s behaviour could result in action being taken against her for breach of tenancy. It also advised that there was an outstanding action from the meeting on 10 February 2022 for the resident to follow up with the mental health team about being allocated a care coordinator. It encouraged that to take place and advised if this were not done by 22 March it would make its own safeguarding referral.
This investigation has not been provided with copies of file notes of the meetings on 2 and 8 March 2022 which is a record keeping failure.
It was appropriate for the landlord to set out the resident’s obligations and warn her that her tenancy may be at risk. The landlord has a legal and contractual relationship with the resident that it does not have with her son. This is because he is an occupier of the property and not a named tenant. It was therefore not obliged to invite the resident’s son to the meeting.
However, it would have been appropriate for it to have asked the resident if she wanted him to attend because she may have felt it was appropriate for him to be there. It is unclear if it gave the resident the option, and if not, the reasons for its decision making.
It appropriately offered to refer the resident’s son to diversionary activities if he felt this might be beneficial. This was in line with its ASB policy.
In an email to the landlord of 5 April 2022 the resident’s son said he had spoken to the mental health team who advised him he had been discharged from their service and had not received any communication from the landlord. On 6 April the landlord’s head of service replied to say he thought someone had contacted the team on the resident’s son’s behalf. In his email of the same day the resident’s son set out his dissatisfaction that they had not done so.
On 7 April the landlord emailed the resident’s son to say it had contacted the mental health team to ask them to reconsider but had been advised it was not possible for them to continue supporting him. The resident’s son’s response of the same date set out his frustration, adding that the landlord had let him “down severely.”
It is unclear when it was agreed that the landlord would contact the mental health service on the son’s behalf which is a record keeping failure. However, it did not dispute that it had done so and therefore the fact that it had not monitored this action to ensure it was completed was inappropriate, particularly given his vulnerabilities. It caused distress and disappointment to the resident. It also failed to take a harm centred approach as set out in its ASB policy. Following email correspondence with the resident’s son during July 2022 the landlord completed a mental health referral on his behalf on 7 July which was submitted on 19 July.
It is noted that the landlord has a new acceptable behaviour towards staff policy on its website dated 17 September 2024. Therefore, an order has not been made regarding this.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident and her son. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Record Keeping.

The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and actions, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. The landlord has failed to provide ‘live’ file notes of contact with the resident and her son including telephone calls and meetings. It has also failed to provide minutes of multi-agency meetings.
It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction however made about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents. A resident does not have to use the word complaint for it to be treated as such.
The Code also requires landlords’ complaint responses to advise the resident of the complaint stage, outcome of the complaint and the reasons for any decisions made.
On 2 July 2021 the resident’s son emailed the landlord to report his dissatisfaction with its response to his reports of ASB. He said it had “ignored his pleas for help.” The landlord failed to log a formal complaint and instead undertook a ‘case review’. On 9 July it wrote to the resident’s son to set out the outcome of its case review. He replied by email on the same day to say he remained dissatisfied.
The landlord’s failure to log a formal complaint setting out the required information was inappropriate. Furthermore, it meant it had to email the resident’s son again on 3 August 2021 to explain that the complaint was not upheld and explain why.
On 24 April 2022 the resident’s son logged a complaint using a form on the landlord’s website. He did not receive a response which was inappropriate because the landlord failed to comply with its complaints policy.
Furthermore, the resident’s son was caused inconvenience, time and trouble when he contacted this Service for assistance on 14 June 2022. We wrote to the landlord on 23 June to ask that it provide a response by 7 July. The landlord failed to do so, causing further distress to the resident’s son.
This also caused further time and trouble to the resident’s son who emailed this Service on 28 July 2022 to ask again for our intervention. We wrote to the landlord for a second time on 4 October and requested it provide a response by 12 October.
While it is acknowledged the landlord provided its response within the timescale set out in our letter of 4 October. It was over 5 months after the resident first made his complaint which was inappropriate, causing distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord’s letter to the resident of 2 August 2022 advised that during their meeting on 29 July they had agreed that all outstanding complaints could be closed down as all issues were discussed at the meeting. However, given that it had corresponded with the resident’s son at some length it would have been reasonable for it to have written to him to confirm the same if it intended to rely on that agreement as a basis for not issuing a complaint response.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. It is acknowledged that the landlord’s stage 1 response of 12 October 2022 apologised for the delay. However, it apologised for not responding to the letter of 23 June and failed to recognise that the resident first made his complaint on 24 April. Furthermore, it incorrectly cited the date it was first asked by this Service to respond as 30 June when it was 7 July. This was a record keeping failure.
Having acknowledged the delay the landlord failed to consider offering compensation to put things right in line with its compensation policy. It also failed to provide an explanation for the delay and set out what it would do differently to prevent a recurrence.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 23 March 2023 the landlord incorrectly said the resident made his online complaint on 22 April 2022. The evidence shows the complaint was made on 24 April. This was a further record keeping failure.
It apologised that it did not provide a formal response to the complaint but failed to provide an explanation as to why it did not do so. Having identified its failure it once again failed to consider offering compensation to put things right and set out its learning.
On 12 October 2022 the resident’s son requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the process. The landlord provided its response on 23 March 2023 over 5 months later and significantly outside of its timescales.
The Code says that if an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully this should be agreed by both parties.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said that “we jointly agreed” to investigate the complaint outside of its normal timescales to allow case reviews to take place.
The Code says that a complaint response must be issued when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue, are completed.
In its email to the resident’s son dated 22 November 2022 the landlord offered to undertake an external case review. It said it could respond to matters raised at stage 2 however, it felt an external review would be beneficial. If the resident was not satisfied with the outcome of the review it would “respond more broadly on the issues raised as a stage 2.”
The landlord’s proposed course of action was inappropriate because it was putting in an additional stage before carrying out its stage 2 review which delayed its complaint response. In line with the Code it would have been appropriate for the landlord to issue its response within the timescale. It could have then requested the external review as an action arising from its stage 2 review which it should then monitor. That it did not, caused an avoidable delay causing distress and inconvenience to the resident’s son.
By way of response the resident’s son emailed the landlord on the same day, 22 November, to request to escalate his complaint to stage 2.
On 29 November 2022 the landlord emailed the resident’s son to say it needed a “few more weeks” to complete its investigation and would respond within 14 days. He replied on the same day to say that he requested to escalate his complaint in October. The landlord’s email to the resident of 30 November confirmed that the complaint had been logged but had not been allocated for which it apologised. It said it would contact the resident the following week to discuss the complaint.
Its stage 2 complaint response said that when the complaint was allocated it was incorrectly allocated to the head of service. While it is positive that the landlord was open about its failure it failed to address the detriment caused to the resident and consider how it might put things right. It would have been appropriate for it to have considered the delay caused by first failing to allocate the complaint and secondly when doing so, allocating it to the wrong member of staff.
The resident’s son emailed the landlord on 16 December 2022 to chase the complaint response. There is no evidence that the landlord had contacted the resident’s son to provide an update on when it might provide its response which was inappropriate causing uncertainty and inconvenience. In an email to the resident of 23 December the landlord apologised for the delay.
On 24 February 2023 the landlord emailed the resident’s son to say it had received the independent review report and wanted to discuss how to proceed.
There is no evidence that the landlord agreed with the resident to delay the stage 2 complaint response pending the outcome of the review. Furthermore, the evidence shows that up to 23 December the resident was of the understanding the response would be provided as soon as possible. Therefore, the delay was unreasonable.
The Code requires landlords to set out its decision on the complaint. The landlord said its response was its final response which concluded its complaints process. However, it failed to set out whether the complaint had been upheld which was inappropriate because its response lacked clarity.
The landlord’s complaint handling failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident’s son. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £200 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Previous determination

The Ombudsman’s determination for case reference 202210234 ordered the landlord to arrange appropriate training for its complaint handling staff. On 17 October 2024 the landlord provided evidence that it had done so. Therefore it has not been necessary to duplicate the order in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of antisocial behaviour caused by the resident’s neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns about the conduct of the resident’s son.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident and her son to apologise for the failures identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £700 compensation comprised of:
  1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its response to reports of antisocial behaviour caused by the resident’s neighbour.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its response to its concerns about the resident’s son’s conduct.
  3. £200 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.
The landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review of the case to ensure that it:
1. Undertakes an exploration of its failures in its communication with the resident’s son. It should set out its learning and how it will do things differently.
2. Carries out a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge information management (KIM) unless the landlord can demonstrate it has done so within the last 12 months.
The landlord is to confirm compliance to the Ombudsman within 8 weeks of the date of this report.