Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Town and Country Housing (202328175)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328175

Town and Country Housing

5 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB);
    2. associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident held an assured tenancy from the landlord from November 2021 to February 2024. The property was a 1 bedroom ground floor flat. The resident suffers from mental health issues, which the landlord became aware of during the events described below. He moved into the property via a mutual exchange from another area, which he said was in part to get away from ASB and drug dealing.
  2. In early 2023, the resident reported his general unhappiness with the local area and its residents to the landlord. As he had the previous year, he expressed his concerns that drug dealing was taking place in nearby blocks but did not provide any specific details. In February 2023, the resident told the landlord that he had been harassed outside of local shops, and he had gone back to the area in which he had previously lived. He said that he had found the harassment very distressing, and he had reported it to the police. The landlord liaised with the police for further details, and it completed a joint visit to the resident on his return.
  3. On 14 June 2023, the resident made his stage 1 complaint to the landlord about its handling of ASB issues over the previous 7 months. He said that he was desperate to move, felt unsafe, and that the police had also been unresponsive. The resident and landlord remained in regular contact from June to September 2023. Through this period the landlord liaised with the police and other external agencies, visited the resident, and discussed his housing options with him.
  4. On 12 September 2023, the resident made a further complaint to the landlord about its handling of ASB issues. The landlord realised that it had not issued a formal response to his June 2023 stage 1 complaint, and it made the decision to escalate the complaint straight to stage 2 of its process.
  5. On 18 October 2023, the landlord issued the resident its stage 2 complaint response. It summarised the support it had offered in response to the resident’s ASB reports, but it highlighted that it was unable to take enforcement action without any evidence or an identified perpetrator. It apologised that it had not issued a stage 1 response in June 2023. It said that the resident’s complaint had been misidentified as a further ASB report, and stated the staff training it had done as a result. It said that it had upheld his complaint on that basis.
  6. The resident continued to report his intense unhappiness with the local area and its residents to the landlord. In mid-November 2023, the landlord became concerned for his welfare when it was unable to contact him. The landlord liaised with the police, who visited him. The landlord offered the resident welfare referrals, and other forms of support. The resident arranged a mutual exchange with another landlord, and he moved homes to a different area 2 months later. He complained to the Ombudsman about the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB and drug dealing in the area of the property, its lack of action for this, and that this had worsened his mood and mental health issues. The resident asked for the landlord to reinvestigate his ASB reports and formal complaints from 2022 to 2023 to put things right.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has explained that the landlord’s handling of his ASB and drug dealing reports worsened his mood and mental health issues, which is very concerning. It is nevertheless outside the scope of this investigation to consider the effect of this on his mood and mental health, in accordance with the Scheme. Under paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts or other tribunal or procedure. As we do not have the authority or expertise to determine liability for damages to health in the way that a court or insurer might, it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to seek this elsewhere. However, this investigation has considered the whether the landlord’s handling of his case caused him time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience.

ASB handling

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy stated that it operated a victim centred approach and dealt with cases on an individual case by case basis in partnership with other agencies. It listed the range of factors it would consider in each case, which included “what evidence there is to support the allegation”. It described the circumstances in which it would close an ASB case that included “where it is deemed that the ASB cannot be evidenced”. It explained the responsibility of residents who had reported ASB to assist with the provision of evidence, which included the use of diary sheets.
  2. The resident reported his concerns about suspected drug dealing in a nearby block in the early months of his tenancy in 2022. He emphasised the impact of his ASB experiences in the area that he had moved from. He stated that “that’s why I moved” and that “I will not put up with it”. It was therefore understandable that he would be distressed by the incident of harassment that he experienced in February 2023. The resident continued to report suspected drug dealing, and his general concerns with what he considered to be a ‘rough area’, up to making his stage 1 complaint to the landlord in June 2023.
  3. The landlord opened ASB cases, liaised with the police and other agencies such as social services, and made unsuccessful efforts to obtain specific details and evidence from the resident. It established that the resident’s mental health had suffered greatly having become unemployed, and his wish to leave the area. While the resident’s distress was understandable, the landlord did in the main demonstrate that it handled his concerns with empathy, in a timely manner, and in line with its policy. The Ombudsman has therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  4. The landlord opened an ASB case in response to the resident’s March 2022 reports, and it made timely attempts to contact him. When these proved unsuccessful, the landlord wrote to him, provided diary sheets, and offered a clear explanation of the information it would need. The resident contacted the landlord one week later and enquired about the ASB history of the area. He expressed his concern that it seemed “a bit on the rough side”, but did not provide specific details.
  5. The landlord responded to the resident within one day, offered him assurance about the area, and explained that it had “a dedicated Community Safety Team that acted on all reports of ASB”. It again invited the resident to provide specific details of any incidents. The landlord closed the resident’s ASB case on the basis that there was no information or evidence for it to act upon, which was in line with its policy. This continued throughout, with the resident reporting his understandable, but nonspecific concerns, and the landlord responding in an empathetic and timely manner. The landlord therefore acted reasonably.
  6. In February 2023, the resident told the landlord about the harassment incident he had reported to the police, which had happened away from his property. The resident said that he had gone back to the area that he had moved from, and it was unclear whether he intended to return.
  7. The landlord again acted in a timely manner in its liaison with the police at the time of the resident’s February 2023 reports. Its internal emails evidenced its discussions of the resident’s situation, and how it could support him. It stated that the resident would often report general ASB, but never wished to proceed with its cases. It discussed the resident’s wish to move out of the area, and the mental health referrals it had made for him. It continued to liaise with the police, and subsequently completed a joint visit with them to the resident in August 2023 after his return. The landlord therefore acted appropriately and demonstrated a resolution focused approach.
  8. In early June 2023, the landlord’s internal records again discussed the resident’s situation, and expressed its concern about him. It said that the resident was distressed and calling in daily. It stated that he was very keen to move home, would sometimes refer to drug dealing in the area, but was unwilling to discuss or progress it further. The resident made his stage 1 complaint a few days later on 14 June 2023. He described that he felt unsafe in the area, found the police unresponsive, and wanted compensating for the landlord’s lack of action over the previous 7 months.
  9. The landlord’s complaint handling has been separately assessed below, but it again called the resident in a timely manner on 16 June 2023. The resident stated his intention to leave the area to get away from the ASB. He described how things had been better earlier in his tenancy as he had been working, but that his mental health had suffered now that he was not. It was appropriate for the landlord to enquire about his welfare, and to offer housing options and employment advice.
  10. The landlord evidenced its efforts to support the resident over the following weeks with regular contact, and its own related internal discussions. It visited the resident on 20 June 2023 and confirmed that he had contacted his medical centre about his mental health. At the visit, the resident expressed his view that the landlord should be doing more about the drug dealing, rather than advising him to report it to the police.
  11. The landlord again asked if the resident could provide any specific ASB or drug dealing details. It was appropriate for the landlord to explain that it could not act without this information, and to encourage the resident to make use of diary sheets and continue reporting matters to the police. It was further appropriate for the landlord to make a tenancy sustainment referral, with the aim of supporting the resident to either find work or move home. The landlord’s tenancy support team contacted the resident on 23 June 2023, and offered a range of support that it followed up in writing to him the same day. This again demonstrated a timely and resolution focused approach.
  12. On 26 June 2023, the landlord’s contact with the resident confirmed his difficulties in seeing a doctor. The landlord’s records evidenced its significant concern for the resident’s welfare, and the appropriate referral action it took. It also liaised with the police, who later confirmed that they had contacted the resident and his doctor. The following day the landlord confirmed that the resident had spoken with his doctor, who he said had advised him to get away and stay with family for a while. The landlord evidenced its continued contact with the resident and external support services into early July 2023, and it demonstrated an empathetic and customer focused approach.
  13. The landlord continued to liaise with the police, and it completed a joint visit with them to the resident on 18 August 2023. The resident advised that he had lined up a potential mutual exchange, and the landlord offered appropriate advice. The following month the resident emphasised the extent that his mental health was being impacted, and he tried to make a further complaint about the landlord’s ASB handling. The landlord realised its failure to provide him a stage 1 complaint response (considered below).
  14. The landlord evidenced its contact with the resident, and liaison with the police and external support agencies through the remainder of September to mid-November 2023. It made further appropriate efforts to explain to the resident the type of information that it would need to take ASB action, both during and after the conclusion of its complaint process. It highlighted its joint visits to the area to try and observe the behaviours described by the resident, and that no other resident had reported similar concerns to either it or the police.
  15. It was not disputed that the resident was experiencing significant distress and mental health issues throughout the period assessed, which would have been extremely challenging for him. Nevertheless, the landlord demonstrated its responsiveness, and an empathetic and customer focused approach.
  16. The resident’s concerns about suspected drug dealing and other ASB were understandable. However, his reports did not concern a specific property or perpetrator. They were instead more general in nature, and they reflected his overall view of the area and its residents. The landlord made reasonable efforts to explain the more specific information it would need to act, and it provided diary sheets and appropriate advice throughout. The Ombudsman has therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy stated that it operated a 2-stage process. It said that it would aim to issue responses within 10 and 20 working days at stage 1 and 2, respectively. It explained that where it was unable to meet those timescales, it would advise the resident and agree a target response date of no more than 10 working days.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy described the circumstances in which a discretionary award would be considered. It stated that “the amount awarded will depend on the circumstances of the case and is usually for time and trouble bringing a complaint or for distress and inconvenience experienced by the complainant”.
  3. The landlord maintained timely and empathetic contact with the resident following his complaint, and up to and beyond its conclusion. Nevertheless, it was not disputed that it initially failed to either recognise the matter as a formal complaint, or to issue the resident a stage 1 response.
  4. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it acted in line with the line with the Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The landlord readily accepted its failing and upheld the resident’s complaint on that basis. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident, and to demonstrate its learning via staff training.
  5. However, it would have been further reasonable for the landlord to also try to put things right by making an offer of redress. The landlord’s failure to demonstrate that it considered this was neither in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles, nor its own policy. The Ombudsman has therefore found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling and has made a compensation order to this regard.
  6. The resident made his complaint on 14 June 2023. It was appropriate for the landlord to call him to discuss it 2 calendar days later, which demonstrated a timely and customer focused approach. However, as the landlord later accepted, it mistook the resident’s complaint about its ASB handling as a further report of ASB. As such, and as the landlord acknowledged, it failed to handle his complaint in line with its own policy.
  7. As is considered in the assessment above, the landlord did then maintain regular and empathetic contact with the resident through to his second complaint made on 12 September 2023. Having realised its failing, the landlord evidenced its consideration of the matter. It decided to escalate the resident’s complaint straight to stage 2 of its process to more quickly investigate it at a senior level. While this was somewhat understandable, the landlord again failed to act in line with its policy.
  8. The landlord called the resident on 28 September 2023 to discuss his complaint in depth, which demonstrated a customer focused approach. It agreed with him to issue its response by 19 October 2023. While this was beyond its stated timeframe, the landlord’s actions were in line with its policy.
  9. The landlord issued the resident its stage 2 response on 18 October 2023. The response was helpfully set out. It provided a reasonable summary of its actions in response to the resident’s ASB reports, and the support that it had offered him. It gave a clear but empathetic explanation of the information it would have needed to take further ASB action, and it stated its position that it had handled his reports appropriately. It was reasonable for it to apologise for its failure to recognise the resident’s original complaint, and to demonstrate its learning from this.
  10. However, it would have been further reasonable for the landlord to consider making an offer of redress to the resident for its accepted failing, and in line with its policy, which it has failed to demonstrate that it did. As above, it is acknowledged that the landlord maintained regular and empathetic contact with the resident following his original complaint, and it made significant efforts to support him.
  11. Nevertheless, the resident had made clear his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports. That the landlord took almost 4 months to formally respond to the resident’s complaint would have added to his frustration at a time where he was already experiencing significant distress. The Ombudsman has made a compensation order for £100 to this regard, and we have ordered the landlord to issue a further apology. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation of awards of up this amount to recognise service failure from delays by the landlord in getting matters resolved, resulting in time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks the landlord:
    1. writes to the resident to apologise for the further failings identified in this report.
    2. pays the resident £100 compensation for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its complaint handling.
  2. Compensation awarded by the Ombudsman should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against arrears where they exist.
  3. The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report.