Vivid Housing Limited (202004239)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004239

Vivid Housing Limited

2 Novemeber 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report that a staff member closed her complaint with the Ombudsman untruthfully.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
The Ombudsman expects that a complaint about dissatisfaction with a landlord’s action or lack of action is made within a reasonable period. This would normally be within six months of the matters arising. This is because historical complaint cannot be reliably investigated with the passage of time. Therefore, this investigation will focus on events which were ongoing from September 2020 onwards.
The landlord opened an ASB case on 13 July 2020 after the resident reported that her neighbour (Miss A) was using drugs which she could smell in her garden and entered her property through the windows. She expressed concern about the effect of the smell of drugs on her children’s health and reported that she had witnessed Miss A buying drugs outside her property. The resident said that she had reported the matter to the police which the landlord confirmed to her was the appropriate step. It advised her that it would speak to Miss A about the use of drugs in the garden and the effect on her neighbours.
Between 27 and 31 July 2020, the landlord liaised with the police about the reports of drug use. On 8 and 12 August 2020, the resident advised the landlord that she had reported more instances of drug use to the police.
The resident contacted this Service on 11 August 2020 to express her dissatisfaction with ongoing ASB from her neighbours which included drug use and racial abuse, which she had already raised with the police. She relayed that she had made a verbal complaint to the landlord approximately two weeks previously which it had not responded to.
This Service contacted the landlord on 11 August 2020 to relay her concerns about ASB from her neighbours and that she had received no response to her complaint. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to contact her to progress her complaint.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 16 August 2020 when it was agreed that it would not progress the ASB complaint as the matter was being investigated by the police. She informed it that an officer would be attending her property to witness the smell of drugs. The landlord asked the resident to update it on this and explained that this was a matter for the police but it would take the appropriate actions following their investigation.
On 17 August 2020, the landlord informed the Ombudsman that it had contacted the resident who did not wish to proceed with a formal ASB complaint against her neighbour as the matter was currently being dealt with by the police. It confirmed that it had advised her that her ASB case was still open and she could contact it to proceed with a complaint is she wished to in the future.
The resident advised the landlord, on 24 August 2020, that she had made a further report of drug use by Miss A to the police. It contacted her on 17 September 2020 to ask for an update. The resident advised the landlord on 2 October 2020 that the police had yet to attend to witness the drug use and said that the smell of drug use persisted. It attempted to call Miss A later that day and sent a letter to her on 10 October 2020 to advise that it had received reports of drugs use and requested that she be considerate of her neighbours.
On 28 October 2020, the landlord called the resident; she informed it that she had not smelled drugs since it wrote to Miss A. It confirmed to her that it would be closing the ASB case.
The resident reported to the landlord on 24 November 2020 that Miss A had resumed drug use as two days previously she smelt the drugs in her house which nearly set off a seizure in her child. She said that Miss A had been using drugs for the past three days and she had witnessed Miss A buying drugs outside her property from a car. The resident said that she had reported these incidents to the police. The landlord called and emailed her the following day to request details of the ASB.
The resident called the landlord on 16 December 2020 to advise that she had reported further drugs use by Miss A to the police and she had also reported welfare concerns about Miss A’s child to social services. It confirmed to her it would be following these reports up with the respective agencies. The landlord corresponded with its partner agencies over the following six days and, when due to the agency stating that there was a lack of evidence to substantiate the resident’s claims, called her on 23 December 2020, 12 January and 4 February 2021 to advise her of this. It closed the ASB case on 4 February 2021.
On 10 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord about a separate issue and added that she believed that a member of its staff had “lied” to this Service in order to close the ASB case.
The resident advised the landlord on 11 March 2021 she had been unable to let her child play in the garden that day due to the smell of drugs from Miss A which could have led a seizure; she said this had been reported to the police. Its notes recorded that it had spoken to Miss A that day to inform her of the allegations and the potential for tenancy action. The landlord provided ASB incident diary sheets and asked her to complete these to enable it to gather evidence.
The landlord attempted to call the resident on 23 March and 6 April 2021 on which date it emailed her to provide information on setting up an internet connection in the property, in response to an earlier enquiry.
The resident replied to the landlord on 7 April 2021 to say that her dissatisfaction was with the landlord not registering the property which had meant she had not been able to set up a television or internet service at the property. This also meant that repair staff had been unable to locate the property. The resident stated that would be bring this issue to the Ombudsman.
The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 8 April 2021 in which she expressed her dissatisfaction with her house not being registered which meant she was unable to get a broadband internet connection installed there. She was also unhappy that it had informed the Ombudsman that she wanted her complaint about ASB to be closed. To resolve her complaint, the resident wanted to be informed why she could not get internet at the property and who had informed this Service that she wanted to close her complaint.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 19 April 2021 in which it referred to a telephone conversation it had with her on 13 April 2021. It said that there appeared to have been a misunderstanding about the complaints process. It explained that, before a complaint could be progressed to the Ombudsman, it would need to have exhausted its internal complaints procedure first.
The landlord said that there may have been confusion between its staff member and the resident over whether the complaint in question was an ASB complaint or a complaint about the landlord. It advised her that it had provided feedback to the staff member concerned to ensure that they listened to the resident, were clear in their communication and made sure that the resident understood.
The landlord confirmed that it had contacted the company that managed the fibreoptic line into the property which had confirmed that the property was registered and the line was active. It provided her with a list of the internet providers which were available to her. The landlord noted that the resident had mentioned issues with her neighbours and asked her to contact it if she wished to commence an ASB complaint about these.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 April 2021 to challenge that there had been a misunderstanding about communication with this Service. She contended that its staff member was a “liar” and had requested that the Ombudsman close down her case “behind [her] back”.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 28 April 2021 when she reiterated her belief that a staff member had been untruthful to the Ombudsman. She also reported that the smell of drug use continued to be a problem. The landlord advised her that it would liaise with the Police and speak to Miss A about the drug issue.
On 29 April 2021, the resident reported that Miss A had caused a noise nuisance and advised that she was concerned for Miss A and her children’s welfare which she had reported to the police. The landlord spoke to her to confirm that it was looking into the matter. The resident refused its request to visit her property to discuss her complaints.
The landlord emailed the resident on 30 April 2021 to inform her that it would be speaking to Miss A and provided ASB incident diary sheets for her to complete to enable it to gather evidence. It encouraged her to continue reporting the drug issue to the police. The landlord emailed Miss A that day about the ASB reports.
On 4 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to express her reluctance to fill in the ASB incident diary sheets, contending that it should be doing this. She said that she had been making regular reports to it and was under time pressure looking after her family. The landlord replied later that day to explain that these were important to help build a body of evidence to enable it to take tenancy action.
On 5 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to relay that she had received contact from the police advising her that it visited Miss A and found no evidence of the drug use she had reported. She said that this did not mean that Miss was not using drugs and expressed her frustration with the lack of action taken by the landlord. The resident made two further reports of drug use by Miss A on 10 and 11 May 2021. In response to the resident advising that she was unable to print the ASB incident diary sheets to complete, the landlord agreed to post these to her. She returned these to it on 13 May 2021 and it carried out a visit to Miss A, with the police on 21 May 2021.
The landlord issued a final stage complaint response to the resident on 11 June 2021 in which it explained that it had emailed her on 20 May 2021 to advise that two senior managers would be on the call to discuss her complaint. It explained that this was its procedure at the final of its complaints process and apologised if this was not clear to her.
The landlord noted that on the call the resident was unhappy with the following:
1. That the landlord had not taken action against her neighbour despite her reports “for the last five years.”
2. Miss A’s use of drugs was affecting the resident’s daughter’s health and was affecting her enjoyment of her garden.
3. She wanted it to note the incident on 31 May 2021 involving Miss A which had been reported to the police.
4. She believed a member of the landlord’s staff was a liar and had asked to close the Ombudsman to close her complaint case.
The landlord said that there was no evidence that its staff member had asked the Ombudsman to close her case. It explained that when a resident seeks intervention from this Service, the Ombudsman asks it to first attempt to resolve the matter through its complaints process. The landlord said that it had relayed to the Ombudsman on 17 August 2020 that the resident did not wish to proceed with her complaint at the time due to police involvement at the time. It apologised for any misunderstanding that occurred and said it was satisfied that it supplied the correct information at the time.
The landlord noted that the resident had not brought up her internet connection during its conversation with her and asked her to contact it if this was unresolved.
The landlord noted that it opened a new ASB case against Miss A during the course of the stage one complaint investigation and it had been maintaining contact with her about this. It listed the ASB cases she had raised since 2019, which had mostly been against Miss A, and said that it had liaised with other agencies on many of the cases and there had never been sufficient evidence to take action against her neighbours.
The landlord asserted that it had followed its procedures in dealing with the ASB and its investigations had not produced enough evidence to take formal tenancy action. It encouraged the resident to complete the ASB diary sheets she had been provided with to enable it to gather the evidence needed.
The landlord said that it had contacted the police about the incident that occurred on 31 May 2021 and they had confirmed that it was not taking any further action due to a lack of evidence. It acknowledged that the resident had reported that her neighbours had witnessed the incident and the drug use but noted that it had not received any reports from other neighbours.
The landlord expressed concern at the resident’s reports of the impact on her health of living at the property. It asked to make contact with it about these issues so that it could provide her with information relating to a home move if required.
The resident informed this Service on 30 July 2021 that she continued to be dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB and maintained that it had instructed this Service to close her complaint with the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s tenancy agreement confirms that residents are not to be in possession of, or supply any controlled substance at the property. This also confirms that residents are not to cause any nuisance or annoyance to others.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that, in response to reports of ASB, it will take appropriate and proportionate action when there is sufficient evidence and work with partner agencies to ensure that “the most appropriate powers are used” to deal with ASB issues. This policy states that it will “often use early interventions such as warning letters, meetings and partnership visits” to tackle reports of ASB. Specifically, regarding drug use, this policy states that the landlord will only take tenancy enforcement action when there is proof of drug use and substantial evidence that this was significantly impacting an individual as “the courts may not view personal [drug] use as serious enough to evict a tenant from their home”.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report that a staff member closed her complaint with the Ombudsman untruthfully

It should be clarified that a distinction needs to be drawn between an ASB complaint and a complaint about the landlord’s handling of ASB. This Service only considers a complaint about a landlord’s service once a complaint about this has exhausted its internal complaints process.
The resident contacted this Service on 11 August 2020 to voice her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports. There was no evidence that a complaint about the level of service provided by the landlord had been progressed through its procedure at that point. The Ombudsman encourages residents and landlords to resolve complaints locally in the first instance through its internal complaint procedure.
The landlord informed this Service on 17 August 2020 that it had agreed with the resident not to progress an ASB complaint while awaiting police involvement. As there was no formal complaint which had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure at this point, there was no complaint investigation underway with the Ombudsman.
It was reasonable, therefore, for the landlord to suggest that a misunderstanding had occurred when the resident said that it had closed the complaint with the Ombudsman; this was because there was no complaint investigation to close at the time. The evidence supported the landlord’s account that it had agreed with the resident to suspend the ASB complaint at the time. There was no evidence that it had acted in bad faith by misadvising the Ombudsman and, therefore, no evidence of a failure on its part.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from her neighbour.

As confirmed by the landlord’s ASB policy above, it requires substantial proof of this and the negative impact on a resident of this to enable it to take formal tenancy enforcement action. There was evidence that it did this by working with the police in the investigation of the resident’s reports of drug use. This was appropriate as drug use is potentially a criminal offence and it would be a reasonable for a landlord to be led by the findings of the police in such instances.
The landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy above in liaising with partnership agencies regarding the resident’s concerns over the welfare of Miss A’s child. This again demonstrated that it acted in accordance with policy by working partner agencies which were more appropriately placed to take action in such instances.
When the landlord did not receive confirmation from its partner agencies that there was sufficient evidence of the ASB reported by the resident, it acted reasonably by employing the early interventions stated in its ASB policy above, such as speaking to Miss A and writing to her about the ASB allegations. In the light of the lack of evidence, these were reasonable and proportionate actions to take.
It was also reasonable for the landlord to request that the resident complete ASB incident diary sheets to enable it to gather evidence which could support tenancy enforcement action. It is noted that the resident is dissatisfied with the actions taken by the landlord but it must be explained that tenancy enforcement action is not taken lightly by a landlord or a court as the end result is potentially making a tenant homeless. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to gather a substantial body of evidence to support reports of ASB before it could take formal action.
Therefore, the landlord acted reasonably, and in accordance with its ASB policy in its investigation of the resident’s reports of ASB against Miss A and there was no evidence of failure in its actions.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in:
1. Its response to the resident’s report that a staff member closed her complaint with the Ombudsman untruthfully.
2. Its handling of the resident’s reports of (ASB) from her neighbour.

Reasons

The landlord reasonably investigated the resident’s reports of a staff member acting untruthfully and explained how a misunderstanding may have arisen based on the evidence.
The landlord took reasonable actions, in accordance with its policy, to attempt to gather evidence of the ASB reported to support further action.