Women’s Pioneer Housing Limited (202316698)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316698

Women’s Pioneer Housing Limited

27 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 handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) causing health and safety risks.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a third floor flat. The resident’s tenancy agreement with the landlord sets out that any communal areas shared with other residents must be kept clean, tidy and free from obstruction.
Records show the resident has reported issues to the landlord, since 2015, about her neighbour leaving rubbish and clutter in the communal hallway.
The resident previously complained to the landlord but was unhappy with its stage 1 complaint response complaint. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response in February 2022. Its response addressed concerns raised by the resident, including how it had acted in respect of items left in the communal hallway.
In June 2023, the resident raised a new complaint to the landlord. She said it had failed to enforce its zero-tolerance policy in respect of items and rubbish left in common parts. She said she considered the landlord should take further action against her neighbour to address issues and so the matter was “taken seriously”.
On 28 June 2023 the landlord contacted the resident by telephone to discuss her concerns. It said that it had sent her neighbour a warning letter. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 4 July 2023. It noted her concerns that she had sent emails, messages and pictures of items left in the communal areas for 10 years. It said:
1. it had taken action in relation to a number of concerns she had raised about her neighbour leaving items in communal areas.
2. it had issued a warning letter to her neighbour on 15 June 2023.
3. the resident should send it photos of future rubbish and items in communal areas to allow it to take next steps as quickly as possible.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 10 July 2023. She said it had acknowledged she had been complaining for 10 years about its failure to enforce a zero-tolerance policy to items in the common parts. She said:
1. while the landlord said it had acted, this was not taken “in a manner to enforce [its] policy since this issue had never stopped going on”.
2. its failure to enforce the zero-tolerance policy was against health and safety rules and regulations.
3. she had been under “constant stress and worries” and had spent too much time communicating with the landlord, but it had never resolved the issue “permanently”.
4. it was “not acceptable” that the landlord said she should carry on reporting the recurrent issue.
The resident asked that the landlord pay her compensation for the distress caused by the “years” when she was concerned for her health and safety. She asked for an award of £20 per month since the beginning of her tenancy, and £20 for each month the landlord failed to enforce its zero-tolerance policy.
The landlord responded to the resident on 25 July 2023. It said it had reviewed her request for compensation. It said that it had acknowledged there was a record of the resident reporting items left in communal areas. However, it said on each occasion it had responded, and it had removed the items or they had already been removed prior to its attendance.
The landlord said it had taken “considerable action” over the years and that it would continue to remind residents of the importance of fire safety, and of reporting concerns.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

Legislation addresses a landlord’s right to remove possessions that belong to third parties under the Torts (interference with Goods) Act 1977. This sets out that, before removing items left on its property, the landlord must give notice that it believes the items are abandoned and that it will remove them within a reasonable period.
The landlord’s estate management policy sets out that it has a “zero tolerance” of items left in communal areas. It says:
1. its estate services officers (ESOs) will monitor cleanliness and tidiness of common parts.
2. ESOs will inspect buildings on a regular basis to ensure that common parts are clean and free from hazards.
3. ESOs will enforce a regime of “zero tolerance in relation to removing items left in common parts which may pose a risk should a fire occur”.
4. it will comply with relevant legislation and landlord procedures, including its Torts procedure.
The landlord’s fire safety policy outlines its obligations to comply with fire safety legislation. Its policy sets out that it will monitor communal areas at its properties for fire safety issues.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that low–level neighbour disputes would not be considered as ASB. However, it says repeated low-level incidents that are having a harmful effect on the complainant can be considered under the ASB policy.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it may make discretionary awards for poor complaint handling, delays in providing a service and failure to follow a policy or procedure. It says that, for awards above £25, it will consider the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
The landlord’s complaint’s policy sets out that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days of its acknowledgment. It says it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days, and these will be considered by a director within the landlord.

Scope of the investigation

The resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of issues she has experienced with items being left in communal areas since the beginning of her tenancy. However, the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints at the time the events happened. This is because, with the passage of time, evidence may become unavailable. This makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be completed.
We note the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response to the resident in February 2022 in respect of concerns, including its handling of items left in communal areas. She made a further complaint to the landlord in June 2023 that it was failing to enforce its zero-tolerance policy in respect of this. Our investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling since June 2023 when the resident made her further complaint. That is because we have seen no evidence of reports or concerns raised by the resident in the 6-month period prior to her complaint. However, we have considered the landlord’s handling of the concerns she raised, in the context of its awareness of the longstanding issues.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB causing health and safety risks

The resident raised concerns that the landlord had failed to enforce its zero-tolerance policy to items left in communal areas. She said that its failure to “act efficiently” had allowed residents to feel it was “OK” to “breach” this policy.
When the resident complained to the landlord in June 2023, she said she wanted the landlord to ask her neighbour to stop her ASB, “instead of doing nothing except sending letters”. She said she had been reporting such issues over a 10-year period, and that the landlord had failed to resolve the issue “once and for all”.
In responding to her complaint at stage 1 the landlord acknowledged the long history of issues with items being left in communal areas. It said it had acted in respect of this. It explained that it had also recently sent the resident’s neighbour a warning letter, on 15 June 2023. It asked that the resident continue to send it photographs of further items of rubbish in the communal area so it could consider the next steps.
Records show the landlord sent a warning letter to the resident’s neighbour in June 2023. That was appropriate. It was also positive that the landlord identified that additional zero tolerance notices could be displayed in communal areas at the property. But this did not go far enough. While it said it would monitor and take further enforcement action, as needed, there was more it could have done to coordinate its response to ongoing issues. The resident had set out in her complaint that the landlord had already sent letters to her neighbour, but issues had continued.
It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to continue to report issues. However, it should also have considered how it could effectively monitor the ongoing situation itself. The landlord’s estate management policy says that ESOs will inspect buildings on a regular basis. The resident confirmed in later correspondence that an ESO was inspecting the property twice a month. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider how it could monitor ongoing issues by reviewing ESOs inspection reports. Doing so would have helped it to assess and evidence the extent of issues. That it did not do so was a failing. As set out in the estate management policy, inspections by ESOs were in part to ensure communal areas were free from hazards. By not exploring information from these inspections, the landlord was not using all its available tools to address the issues. This would have given the resident the impression that it was not doing all it could to resolve the ongoing problem.
The landlord said it had acted on past reports to ensure items were removed. But, given it had acknowledged the long history of issues, it should reasonably have considered how else it could address matters. It was clear from the resident’s response to the landlord’s stage 1 review of her complaint that she was frustrated it was simply asking her to continue to report the recurrent issue. She said she wanted it look at how it could resolve the issue “permanently”.
We note the resident later expressed her view that the landlord should consider removing her neighbour from the building. While we understand her frustration at the longstanding problems, the landlord must take a proportionate approach and consider all the circumstances. Action to end a tenancy would normally only be taken in severe and extreme cases. However, there was more coordinated action the landlord should reasonably have considered in this case.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that it may consider repeated low-level incidents as ASB. It would have been reasonable for it to consider whether it was appropriate to address the ongoing issues in this way. We note that when reviewing the matter in March 2024, after further reports from the resident, the landlord said internally that the “collaboration between the [ESOs] and the [housing officers] doesn’t appear to have worked in this case”. It was only at this time that the landlord considered whether it should address the ”persistent items in communal areas” as ASB. That it did not consider this approach at an earlier stage was a failing.
A housing officer for the landlord met with the resident and neighbour in March 2024. It told the resident the following month that it had advised her neighbour that items were not to be left in communal areas. The housing officer also told the resident that they had asked colleagues to report back and photograph when items were left in communal area, and it would take action when it had evidence. The landlord should reasonably have considered this approach in June 2023, when the resident raised her concerns. That it took the landlord until April 2024 to address the problem in this way was a failing. This would have caused the resident unnecessary frustration and concern.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB causing health and safety risks. We have considered the circumstances of the case and referred to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. With this in mind, we have ordered an award aimed at appropriately recognising the impact of the landlord’s failings.
Landlords have a legal duty to ensure that fire risks and hazards are removed, or reduce these as far as possible. We have also ordered that the landlord review whether it has adequate guidance and training in place for staff in respect of responding to ongoing issues with items left in communal areas. We have recommended that the landlord contact the resident to understand any ongoing concerns about items left in communal areas and consider appropriate action with reference to its ASB and estate management policies.

Handling of the complaint

In line with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged its receipt of the resident’s complaint on 9 June 2023 within 5 working days. But there is no evidence it sent an acknowledgement within that time, and the resident had to chase this on 16 June 2023. That was a failing. The landlord should have ensured that a timely acknowledgement was sent so the resident was assured that her concerns had been received and were being considered.
While the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was only a couple of days outside the target response time set out in its complaints policy, it should still have acknowledged and apologised for this delay. That it did not, was a failing. The landlord told the resident that it would escalate her complaint to a director for review if she was still dissatisfied. But it did not do so when it received her response to its stage 1 review. We acknowledge that the resident did not specifically ask it to escalate the matter, but it was evident from her response that she remained dissatisfied. She said it was “not acceptable” that the landlord had directed her to carry on reporting issues, and she raised concerns about its “mismanagement” of the situation. While the landlord responded to the resident’s request for compensation on 25 July 2023, it did not provide her with a full and appropriate response to her unresolved concerns. If it was unsure if she wanted to escalate her complaint, then it should have checked this with her.
In line with its complaints policy, the landlord should reasonably have escalated the matter to a director for review at stage 2 of the process. Instead, the same officer who had responded at stage 1 provided the further response. That was not an appropriate response to her ongoing concerns. As outlined in the landlord’s own complaints policy, and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, a complaint at stage 2 should be considered by a different person. By not doing, so the landlord missed the opportunity to provide the resident with an independent review of the stage 1 complaint. It also meant her concerns were not fully considered under its complaints procedure. Had it done so, it could have identified earlier the additional action it could consider to resolve the resident’s ongoing concerns.
We have ordered that the landlord remind its complaint handling staff of the importance of appropriately escalating complaints when residents remain dissatisfied after the stage 1 review. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. With consideration to the circumstances, we have ordered an award aimed at recognising the impact of the landlord’s complaint handling failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB causing health and safety risks.
2. maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. write to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. pay the resident compensation of £300, made up of:
  1. £200 for the impact of failings in its handling of her reports of ASB causing health and safety risks.
  2. £100 for the impact of its complaint handling failings.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. review whether it has adequate guidance and training in place for staff in respect of responding to ongoing issues with items left in communal areas, including fire safety awareness.
2. remind its complaint handling staff of the importance of appropriately escalating complaints when residents remain dissatisfied after the stage 1 complaint review.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should contact the resident to understand any ongoing concerns about items left in communal areas. It should then consider appropriate action with reference to its ASB and estate management policies.