The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202009057)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009057

The Guinness Partnership Limited

15 June 2021


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 concerns:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s historical reports of antisocial behaviour.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour from mid-2020 onwards.
    3. The impact the antisocial behaviour had on the resident and her partner’s health.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

Historical reports

  1. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that “were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising”.
  2. In her correspondence to this Service, the resident has said that she has been experiencing antisocial behaviour (ASB) for the preceding eight-and-half years. No evidence has been provided for this investigation of a formal complaint being raised with the landlord until November 2020. The Ombudsman encourages residents 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 whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. Because of that, and in line with paragraph 39(e), this investigation will focus on the months leading up to the resident’s complaint in November 2020. Any mention of historical events throughout this investigation is for context only.

Health impact

  1. Under paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.
  2. The resident has explained that ASB has impacted her and her partner’s health. Unfortunately, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. Her reports of ASB concern one neighbour.
  2. The landlord’s internal records show that on 8 June 2020 the resident reported ASB to the landlord. She explained that the neighbour was drunk, shouting at other residents, and playing loud music from 7pm until 1.30am.
  3. The landlord’s records show that the resident reported similar incidents of ASB on 29 June 2020. The landlord called the resident on 2 July to discuss her reports, but it is unclear what was discussed as the call notes have not been provided for this investigation.
  4. The resident’s MP’s records show that on 7 July 2020 the landlord held a meeting with her and the resident. During the meeting the landlord’s officer said that the landlord was “at the point of legal action having built a case”. The records also show the officer saying there was a possibility of applying for an injunction or possession of the neighbour’s property.
  5. The resident reported further instances of ASB on 4, 5, 21, and 24 August 2020. The landlord’s records show that it added these reports to the ongoing ASB case, and contacted the resident on 10, 13, and 17 August to discuss them.
  6. The landlord held a meeting with the resident and her MP on 18 September 2020. The MP’s notes show that the landlord’s officer advised them both that he had undertaken a “proportionality test” for legal action at the end of August.
  7. The resident reported two incidents of ASB to the landlord on 5 October 2020. The landlord’s records show that it then spoke to both parties on 6 October.
  8. The resident reported ASB on 18 November 2020. The landlord’s call notes show that the resident wanted the neighbour to be moved, but the landlord explained that this was not being considered. It encouraged her to contact environmental health, as she had reported noise disturbances. The landlord then called the neighbour on 19 November to discuss the allegations.
  9. The landlord held a meeting with the resident and her MP on 19 November 2020 to discuss the ongoing ASB case. The landlord’s notes from this meeting show that it explained to the resident that a new officer had taken over the ASB case, and that, after reviewing the case, she had determined that there was insufficient evidence to warrant an injunction against the neighbour. The resident agreed to consider mediation, keep diary logs, use noise recording equipment, and provide witness statements. The landlord said that it would apply for a disclosure from the police for all of their records relating to the neighbour to verify the resident’s claims that she had called them multiple times to reports incidents of ASB. It also said that legal action would be a last resort.
  10. The resident declined the landlord’s mediation suggestion on 20 November 2020. The landlord explained that it could not proceed with the case without evidence, and it needed the resident to cooperate in order to gather that evidence.
  11. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of her ASB case to this Service on 20 November 2020. We contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to the complaint.
  12. The landlord called the resident on 23 November 2020 to discuss her complaint. Its call notes show that the resident felt she had exhausted its ASB process, and that there had not been a satisfactory outcome. The resident described the ASB she was experiencing and said that she believed the landlord was in breach of the tenancy agreement by allowing the ASB to occur. She explained that she had reported incidents of ASB to the police, and was dissatisfied that the landlord had told her there was insufficient evidence to take action and evict the neighbour. The landlord asked whether the resident wanted to install noise recording equipment, but she declined.
  13. On 24 November 2020 the landlord asked the police to provide it with any information they had concerning the neighbour and ASB.
  14. The landlord called the resident on 30 November 2020. Its call notes show that the resident said she did not want to engage in mediation, but was willing to install a noise recording application on her phone. She confirmed on 2 December that she had installed the application.
  15. The landlord’s internal records from 7 December 2020 show that it intended to offer the resident a small gesture of goodwill, (presumably in the form of compensation) in its later stage one complaint response. This was due to its previous officer’s poor record keeping, and because he had advised the resident that he was seeking to evict the neighbour.
  16. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 18 December 2020. It explained that there was an ongoing ASB case against the neighbour, and that it had liaised with the resident’s MP and the police about it. The landlord said it had not yet exhausted the ASB process, and that its original officer should not have said that an eviction was imminent. It said that it had offered the resident support through its meetings with her and its offer of mediation. The landlord partially upheld the complaint due to its officer giving incorrect information, and apologised. It said that it would update her with any developments in the case, and encouraged her to use the noise recording app to gather evidence. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  17. The landlord’s internal records show that the resident escalated her complaint so that she could then bring it to this Service. It is unclear when the resident advised it of this.
  18. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 12 January 2021. It explained that it was vital for the resident to help gather evidence of the ASB, so it could take appropriate action. It said that there was insufficient evidence at that time to warrant action. It explained that ASB cases did not always result in ending tenancies and leases, and that some cases could be resolved via mediation. It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
  19. The resident reported ASB on 28 January 2021. She said that there had been two incidents, one on 22 January, and another on 25 January. On 29 January 2021 the landlord contacted the neighbour to advise them of the recent reports of ASB made against them.
  20. The landlord’s records show that on 4, 11, and 18 February 2021, the resident advised there had been no incidents of ASB. The landlord then confirmed with the resident on 18 February that it would close the ASB case.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states that playing loud music, shouting, swearing, and being drunk and disorderly are examples of ASB. The landlord will work in partnership with other agencies, and provide referrals to support services. It may need to take several actions to resolve or prevent the issue, and it will only consider legal action in serious cases and when appropriate to do so. It will communicate clearly with its residents and explain its approach to ASB so “they can understand what they can expect from [it]”. It will close a case when the behaviour has improved to an acceptable level, or when there is no further reasonable action it can take to resolve the matter.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it may offer a resident a goodwill gesture when it agrees that it should have provided a better customer experience, and when it decides that an apology alone would not be proportionate.
  3. The resident explained to the landlord that she wanted the neighbour to be evicted. The landlord advised the resident in November 2020 that eviction would be its last resort, and that it firstly needed to gather evidence of the ASB. Eviction is a legal process, and the landlord would need to show the court that it had exhausted all other options before pursuing it. Therefore, its explanation of why it could not consider eviction at the time (due to insufficient evidence), and why it would be a last resort was reasonable.
  4.  The landlord took reasonable steps to gather the necessary evidence from November 2020 by liaising with the police, suggesting that the resident contact environmental health, encouraging her to keep incident diaries, and to install noise recording equipment. The resident explained that she had reported incidents of ASB from the neighbour to the police. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to contact them in order to gain evidence to corroborate her claims. Also, as explained above, the landlord needed to gather evidence of the ASB to warrant any action. Therefore, its suggestions for the resident to install noise recording equipment, and to keep incident diaries were also reasonable, especially given that the resident had reported noise disturbances from the neighbour.
  5. The evidence shows that the resident made two reports of ASB between December 2020, and February 2021. The ASB was therefore not frequent or persistent, and indicates that the neighbour had changed their behaviour, given that there were fewer reports being made against them. In light of this, it was reasonable for the landlord to close the ASB case on 18 February 2021, and in line with its policy which sets out in what circumstances it will do so.
  6. However, the landlord’s internal records show that it recognised that its previous record keeping for the ASB case had been poor. There is evidence of the resident reporting incidents of ASB from June 2020 onwards, but it is not clear what action, if any, the landlord took in response to these reports. We cannot therefore robustly determine whether it took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s reports of ASB before November 2020, and it is apparent that it did not manage the resident’s expectations about what it could and could not do during that period. This was a failing by the landlord.
  7. The landlord acknowledged to the resident, and internally, that it had given the resident incorrect information concerning potential legal action against the neighbour. It therefore intended to offer the resident a goodwill gesture in light of this shortcoming. It ultimately did not do so.
  8. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that a goodwill gesture is suitable when it agrees that it should have provided a better customer experience. It is therefore unclear why the landlord did not offer the resident compensation, as it would have been appropriate and in line with the policy. It failed to manage the resident’s expectations, and failed to communicate clearly as its ASB policy says it will. The landlord acknowledged its failings, but an apology alone was not sufficient to properly remedy the delay and mismanagement of the resident’s expectations.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in way it handled the resident’s reports of ASB from mid-2020 onwards.

Reasons

  1. Although the landlord took reasonable steps to gather evidence to support the resident’s reports of ASB from November 2020 onwards, it had previously given the resident wrong information, and failed to keep robust records of the case. The landlord did not suitably remedy it fallings.  

Orders and recommendations 

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 for the inconvenience experienced as a result of the service failures identified with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when the payment has been made.