The Guinness Partnership Limited (202300833)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300833

The Guinness Partnership Limited

25 February 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 response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
The Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since May 2002. The property is a 1 bedroom bungalow within a development for residents over the age of 55. The landlord is a housing association. Its records show that the resident is a wheelchair user and has a hearing impairment. The resident has been represented by her solicitors in bringing her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
The resident’s neighbour (Mr A) moved into his property in August 2019. On 5 July 2022 the resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord on her behalf. It said that the resident had experienced ASB from her neighbour since he moved in. The ASB consisted of shouting, swearing, and banging on the adjoining walls. The resident had kept diary records of incidents and had audio recordings. Further, she had reported the incidents to her local officer and other services. She wanted the landlord to act as this was affecting the quiet enjoyment of her home.
The landlord made a referral to its mediation service in August 2022. This followed reports of ASB caused by Mr A from both the resident and another neighbour. The landlord has said that the mediation took place in September 2022.
The landlord recorded receiving a complaint from the resident’s solicitor on 6 January 2023. This was about its handling of her reports of ASB caused by Mr A. The landlord spoke with the resident’s son on 9 January 2023 to discuss the detail of the complaint. It provided a Stage 1 reply on 20 January 2023. This was addressed to the resident’s son, care of her address. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said that:
1. It had a record of all the reports made by the resident and other neighbours about ASB caused by Mr A.
2. These had been followed up by its officers and it had also engaged with other agencies such as the police and social care.
3. The resident had taken part in mediation in September 2022. This had been followed up by the landlord and it continued to monitor the case.
4. It found that it had taken appropriate action in response to the resident’s reports of ASB. It had not always been able to share the detail of these actions.
5. It aimed to reassure the resident and encourage her to report any future incidents.
The resident’s solicitor contacted the Housing Ombudsman Service on 5 April 2023. It said that it had asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint on 13 January 2023, but the landlord had not replied. The resident provided her signed authority for her solicitor to act as her representative on 25 May 2023.
The landlord has shared its ASB records from 28 July 2023. These capture reports it received from the resident and other neighbours about ASB from Mr A and the actions it took.
The Service wrote to the landlord on 8 September 2023 about the resident’s complaint. It asked the landlord to provide a copy of its response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s complaints officer wrote to the resident on 2 October 2023. It said that:
1. It had not considered her complaint as the issues had occurred over 6 months ago. It had investigated and responded to her complaint on 9 January 2023.
2. As the resident had provided no substantive new evidence it had closed her case. She had exhausted its internal complaint procedure.
3. In conclusion it said that she could seek further help with her complaint. She could contact a ‘designated’ person to bring her complaint to the Service. This could be her local MP or councilor.
The landlord’s ASB records include a conversation with the resident’s son on 12 October 2023. It recorded that he said that they had sought their own legal advice and did not want to discuss this further with the landlord. On 25 October 2023 it recorded speaking with other neighbours. As there were no new reports of ASB it closed its case. On 22 November 2023 the resident’s solicitor wrote to the Service. It said that the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB. There had been a recent incident to which the landlord had failed to respond. It confirmed on 21 December 2023 that it wished the Service to investigate the resident’s complaint.

Actions after the landlord complaints process

The Service contacted the landlord on 12 June 2024 to request evidence to support an investigation. Following this contact, the landlord carried out a review of the resident’s complaint.
It wrote to the resident on 3 July 2024 in response to the Ombudsman’s involvement. In this it said that it had found failures in its handling of her complaint. It apologised for the service she had received and the impact this had. It set out its findings and the action it was taking to improve its service and prevent failures reoccurring. It said:
1. Following contact from the Service on 8 September 2023, it had registered her complaint on 18 September 2023. This was outside its timescale for acknowledging a complaint.
2. It wrote to the resident on 2 October 2023 to say that it would not be investigating her complaint as the issues were over 6 months old. This was incorrect. It should have escalated her complaint to stage 2 of its process following contact from the Service and completed a review. It apologised for its failure to do so.
3. It had registered a new stage 2 complaint and would carry out a thorough and independent investigation.
4. It wanted to share its findings from gathering information for the Service.
5. It had received ASB reports about Mr A from multiple neighbours, including the resident’s family members. It did not specifically raise an ASB case with the resident’s name. This was not in line with its own policy to take a victim centred approach.
6. Its senior management team were carrying out a full review of its handling of her reports of ASB. The detail of its findings would be provided in its final stage 2 complaint response.
7. It offered its apologies for letting the resident down and made an offer of £700 compensation for the poor service she had received. This was broken down as:
  1. £350 for its failure to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
  2. £350 for failures to manage her reports of ASB.
8. It had made changes to both its complaints service and tenancy teams to ensure a “more customer focused experience”.
9. Further, it was reviewing all complaints about its handling of ASB and delivering mandatory training to all its complaint handling staff.
10. It had arranged for its new safer neighbourhood officer to visit her, discuss her concerns, and draw up an action plan.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 2 August 2024. It acknowledged her dissatisfaction with its handling of her reports of ASB and that it had not previously completed a stage 2 investigation. In this it:
1. Detailed the resident’s reports of ASB and the actions it had taken.
2. Set out its contact with the resident and her solicitor about reported ASB in July 2022 and the mediation that followed.
3. Said it had received reports of ASB from other neighbours and members of the resident’s family. It did not contact the resident to discuss the impact on her or provide her with updates on the actions it had taken.
4. Outlined contact in September and October 2023. This included her son’s request not to receive further contact from the landlord. As a result, it did not update her when it closed the ASB case.
5. Had not included her as a complainant in the case that was open in November 2023, despite contact from her solicitor. As a result, it did not complete a risk assessment or discuss the case with her.
6. Had reviewed the actions it had taken to deal with the ASB caused by her neighbour. It had taken several steps to contact her neighbour, and it concluded that the actions it had taken so far were proportionate and in line with its procedure.
7. Found failings in its record keeping and its communication with the resident. It had failed to keep her updated on the actions it was taking and had not considered her individual circumstances and needs. There had been some confusion caused by multiple reports made by other neighbours and members of the resident’s family. It recognised the failure to provide the resident with the necessary support and reassurance.
8. Explained that it had restructured its tenancy enforcement team to provide focused and specialist knowledge. A new officer had been appointed, and they had already contacted the resident and her son.
9. It upheld her complaint due to its poor record keeping and communication.
10. Reviewed its handling of the resident’s complaint. It found that following contact from this Service it should have escalated her complaint to a stage 2 in September 2023. It apologised for this error.
11. Offered compensation of £250 for the overall stress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This was together with the landlord’s apology for the failings it had found. This was in addition to the compensation offered in its letter of 3 July 2024.
12. Set out the learning and changes that it had made in response to the resident’s complaint. This covered the changes to its tenancy enforcement team, feedback to its complaints team and additional training it would be delivering to its staff.
13. Confirmed that its officer would continue to engage with the resident and her son.
The landlord has told the Service that the ASB case was closed on 15 January 2025 following confirmation that the issue has been resolved.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s Obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy sets out how it will respond to reports of ASB and the actions that it may take. The policy gives a definition, together with examples, of what it considers to be ASB. This includes shouting, swearing and slamming doors. It says that people have a right to enjoy their homes. “It is important that neighbours understand and tolerate the different lifestyle of others, so long as their lifestyle is reasonable”. It does not consider low level neighbour disputes and day to day living noise, which is not excessive, as ASB.
The policy sets out that it will take a victim-centred approach when investigating reports of ASB. It will communicate clearly with residents to set clear expectations of what it can and cannot do. It will carry out a risk assessment with those reporting the ASB. This will be used in prioritising cases and setting an action plan. It will work with both the complainant and the alleged perpetrator and ensure that its actions are proportionate. It will use a range of actions to resolve the reported ASB.
The landlord has shared the complaints policy that was in place at the time of the resident’s complaint. This was effective from July 2021 and scheduled for review in July 2024. The policy was aligned to the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), in its definition of a complaint. It has a 2 stage complaints process. This says that it will not consider a complaint where the issue occurred over 6 months before the complaint was made. This was in line with the guidance at the time. The Code was revised in April 2024. It now says that a landlord should consider a complaint “where the issue giving rise to the complaint occurred within the preceding 12 months”.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that the landlord will offer compensation where it is “at fault and an apology or other remedy alone is not sufficient”. The policy also covers where the landlord is legally or contractually obliged to make a payment of compensation, or where a claim is made for a specific loss such as personal belongings.
It says that compensation associated with a complaint will often be made at the end of its investigation. It will consider the distress and inconvenience caused by the identified service failure and the level of detriment to the individual resident. The policy sets out the factors that it will consider when deciding on an offer of compensation. Further, this gives a guide as to the level of compensation that it may consider. This is dependent on the severity and impact of the service failure.

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman’s role in investigating complaints about ASB is not to assess whether the behaviour reported amounts to actionable ASB. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and proportionate steps to respond to the resident’s reports of ASB. Together with the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. 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.
The resident’s solicitor, on behalf of the resident, has said that the issues of ASB have been ongoing since Mr A moved into his property in 2019. As the resident raised her complaint with the landlord in January 2023, this report has focused on the 12 month period prior to this. Residents are encouraged to raise complaints with their landlords at the earliest opportunity so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues and reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As issues become historic, it becomes increasingly difficult to unpick the events that took place and how matters were handled.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

The resident reported ASB caused by Mr A, through her solicitor, in July 2022. This set out the actions of Mr A and the disturbance being caused to the resident as a result. It further said that she had reported his behaviour to several services, including the landlord, but that no action had been taken. The landlord has not provided a copy of its response to the resident’s solicitor. It did contact the resident and discuss her concerns and in August 2022 it arranged for mediation to take place. The referral for mediation included the resident and another neighbour, together with Mr A. No record has been provided of the outcome of the mediation or the follow up actions that were taken.
In its response to the resident’s complaint in January 2023, the landlord said that following the mediation it had taken the “appropriate actions … and it will continue to monitor this…”. The landlord had acted in line with its policy. It had spoken with the resident about her reports of ASB and arranged for mediation to resolve the issue. However, her complaint raised fresh complaints about the behaviour of Mr A. These were discussed with the resident’s son but not addressed in its complaint response. There is no evidence that these were followed up with Mr A or if any further action taken. This was a failure in the landlord’s handing of the reported ASB.
The landlord opened a new ASB case in July 2023. This followed reports from another neighbour of a disturbance caused by Mr A. The case notes record the contact made by the landlord with Mr A and the neighbour who had reported the incident. The landlord provided the neighbour with diary sheets and access to the ‘noise app’ to record future incidents. A letter was also sent to Mr A. Following further reported incidents it sent a follow up letter to Mr A. There is no evidence that it completed a risk assessment or an action plan with the neighbour. There is also no evidence that it contacted the resident at this time. Given her earlier complaints it would have been appropriate for it to have done so. This would have allowed it to discuss the impact of the reported incidents on her and offer both support and reassurance about the action it was taking. That it did not do so was a failure.
The landlord closed its case in October 2023. It recorded that it spoke with the resident’s son at this point. He told it that they no longer wished to hear from the landlord, having appointed a solicitor to act on their behalf. There is no evidence that it provided updates to the resident’s solicitor, and it did not let her know that it had closed its ASB case. The landlord should have provided updates through the resident’s solicitor, having been directed to do so by her son. It was a failure that it did not do so.
The landlord reopened its ASB case in November 2023. It had been contacted by the resident’s solicitor reporting further incidents on the resident’s behalf, but it did not link this to its open case. Having received no response from the landlord, the resident’s solicitor contacted the Service in November 2023. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to provide information and reassurance to the resident of the actions it was taking. In its review and stage 2 complaint response given to the resident in August 2024, the landlord acknowledged a failure in its service. It said that it had failed to provide the resident with updates on the action it had taken. As it had not included her as a complainant within its reopened ASB case, it had not contacted her to discuss this with her. Further it did not complete a risk assessment to identify the impact of Mr A’s behaviour on her or offer her any support. This was no doubt a stressful situation for the resident. The landlord acknowledged that it had failed in its communication with her and offered an apology for this. The landlord acted appropriately in acknowledging where it had failed and apologising to the resident. Its actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
From the evidence presented the landlord took steps to deal with the reported instances of ASB in line with its policy. It both spoke with and wrote to Mr A. It also engaged with other services supporting him. These were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.
The Service notes that the landlord conducted a thorough review of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and her related complaint. This followed contact from the Service confirming that the resident’s complaint had been accepted for investigation. The landlord’s review found failings in its service to the resident. These were in its record keeping and its communication with her. It said that it had failed to take a ‘victim centred’ approach when dealing with her reports of ASB, as set out in its policy. It made an offer of compensation to the resident both as part of its review of her case and in its subsequent stage 2 reply. It said that it had made changes to its team dealing with ASB and that an officer would contact the resident directly to discuss her concerns. It would provide a point of contact for the resident.
The landlord’s review and stage 2 complaint reply set out what went wrong and what it could have done better in dealing with the resident’s reports of ASB. It also provided detail of the learning that it had taken from the resident’s complaint. As this was only carried out following escalation to the Service and our acceptance of the resident’s complaint, the landlord did not act in the spirit of our dispute resolution principles or the Code. A finding of service failure has been made in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The Service has noted the offered compensation and related actions set out in the landlord’s review and has made orders associated with these.

Complaint handling

The landlord provided a suitable and timely response to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its process. The landlord had been in contact with the resident’s son and the complaint response was addressed to him at his mother’s address. Although the complaint had been raised through a solicitor it does not appear that they were copied into the reply. The resident’s solicitor engaged with the landlord about her complaint and has told this service that they made a request to escalate her complaint on 13 January 2023. This request was overlapped by the stage 1 complaint reply and was not recorded by the landlord. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to ensure that all parties involved were copied into its complaint response. It should have sent a reply directly to both the resident and her solicitor, not only her son. As the complaint had been raised by the solicitor on behalf of the resident it should also have ensured that they were made aware of its response timeframe. Furthermore, it should have asked if the resident and her solicitor were happy with the stage 1 reply and whether she still wished to escalate her complaint. That it did not do so was a failure in its handling of her complaint.
The Service contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident on 8 September 2023. We asked it to consider the resident’s complaint. The landlord declined to deal with the resident’s complaint, saying that as it had issued a reply in January 2023, the issues had occurred over 6 months ago. It would have been more appropriate for the landlord to have escalated her complaint and completed a stage 2 review at that time. That it did not do so was a failure and a missed opportunity to provide an early resolution to her complaint.
The landlord intervened following the acceptance of the resident’s complaint by us for investigation. It completed a detailed review of its service and provided a stage 2 complaint response. This was sent in August 2024, just under a year after we first contacted it. The outcome of the review and the landlord’s stage 2 letter provide a level of compensation and learnings from the resident’s complaint that would have been considered to offer reasonable redress. However, as this was not completed prior to the case being accepted for investigation by the Service such a finding cannot be made. Our guidance on outcomes says that such a finding would not be appropriate “where an offer of redress is awarded late in a protracted process”. We therefore consider that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. An offer of a further amount of compensation has been made in recognition of the length of time taken to provide a resolution.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident £200 compensation. This is in addition to the £950 offered by the landlord through its review and stage 2 complaint response. This is broken down as follows:
  1. £100 for failures in its complaint handling and communication with the resident.
  2. £100 for the stress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident in pursuing her complaint with the landlord.
  3. Evidence of payment of the total amount of compensation should be provided to enable this Service to confirm compliance with this order.

Recommendations

The landlord should revisit the review it carried out of the resident’s ASB case and complaint. It should ensure that the defined outcomes have been appropriately embedded and that all necessary training has been delivered.