Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Pine Court Housing Association Limited (202016974)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016974

Pine Court Housing Association Limited

15 September 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about her housing transfer, antisocial behaviour, and customer service.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. Her flat is within a block of similar properties. Her tenancy began in August 2016.
  2. On 24 August 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that a neighbour had “verbally abused [her], smashed glass, threw rubbish around the block…”. She said she “bid on property pool every week so [she could] move out of this nightmare”. She said she had been on its “list for a move for several months”. On 27 August the resident advised the landlord that there had been “significant antisocial behaviour concerns since [she] became a tenant at this property with numerous tenant[s]”.
  3. On 21 December 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that her car had been broken into the night before. An officer from the landlord’s team called her to discuss the incident. Following the conversation, the resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord. She said the officer was “rude abrupt and failed to understand the issue”. She said they “lack[ed] awareness for any situation”. She said she was concerned for her family’s safety in the block.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 14 January 2021 to chase a response. She emailed again on 19 January and attached a chain of her previous emails. The landlord’s records show it called the resident on 19 January, and explained that it had only received her email from that day (the landlord has explained that it told the resident she had been using an incorrect email address). It noted that the resident wanted to raise a formal complaint about “staff attitude”, and “issues with the block”.
  5. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 9 February 2021. It included two issues which had not featured in the resident’s complaint of 21 December 2020. No evidence has been provided by the landlord explaining how or why these additional issues were included. These issues included:
    1. The resident’s housing transfer request: The landlord acknowledged that the resident felt it had not dealt with her enquiry about housing in a helpful way. It said it had reviewed its records, and found it had given her advice about expected waiting times. It acknowledged that it could have handled her enquiry in a different way. It said it had sent her a transfer application form that day, and asked her to complete it.
    2. Antisocial behaviour (ASB): The landlord said the resident explained she was dissatisfied with its handling of a case of antisocial behaviour. It explained how it had investigated the ASB, and the wide range of actions it had taken (it did not give any specifics of the incidents it was referring to, such as dates or other details). It acknowledged that the resident had felt she hadn’t been given information about what actions the landlord had been taking, and explained that while some information had been shared with her, there had been limitations due to confidentiality and the sensitivity of the matters. Nonetheless, it recognised that it could have communicated and explained things better at the time. It said that it had been moving towards and preparing for legal action against the perpetrator, but that they had then moved away from the area. It said it was continuing to monitor the situation.
    3. Customer service: The landlord said it had investigated the examples the resident had given of its staff being unhelpful or demonstrating a bad attitude. It said that, based on some of the resident’s feedback, it would make changes to its staff training to empower its staff to help residents in a more effective way. Again, o specific details or information about the incidents was included.
  6. The landlord concluded by explaining that it would contact the resident to ensure she was satisfied with its complaint response.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord on 25 February 2021. She said she had viewed a new property the previous day, and that it had been unsuitable. She asked to remain a priority for the next available home. The landlord has explained that following this email it called the resident, and she asked to escalate her complaint. No record of this call has been provided.
  8. The landlord called the resident on 18 March 2021. Its call notes show it explained that it would speak to its staff and highlight the importance of customer care and respect. It also confirmed with the resident that due to overcrowding she would remain on its property transfer list.
  9. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 18 March 2021. It said its staff would undertake training to ensure learning around communication with customers. It reiterated that she was on its transfer list, and would advise her if it found a suitable home. It said it would continue to work alongside the police and residents in relation to ASB. It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied. 

Assessment and findings

  1. As explained above parts of the resident’s complaints were made during phone calls, with limited or no records kept or provided for this investigation. The landlord’s internal correspondence show that on 19 January 2021 the resident raised a complaint on the phone about staff attitude, and “issues” on the block. No further details, such as that nature of these issues, were given. In its stage one complaint response the landlord explained its actions in relation to its handling of previous ASB cases, but with no details of when these cases arose, and its handling of the resident’s request to transfer to a new home. It also acknowledged the resident’s complaint about staff members, and said it would ensure its staff underwent training in order to improve customer service.
  2. The landlord’s response to the customer service complaint acknowledges the resident’s concerns, explains the actions it took to investigate them, and the actions the landlord planned to take to improve this aspect of its service. In the circumstances of the resident’s complaint on the issue, the landlord’s response appears proportionate, pragmatic, and reasonable.
  3. The landlord appears to have provided reasonable explanations in response to the resident’s concerns about ASB. However, given that no information has been provided showing what the resident’s concerns actually were, it remains unknown whether the landlord addressed all the points she raised, which ASB case it referred to, or anything else on which this investigation can assess the soundness of the landlord’s response.
  4. Likewise the landlord’s response about the resident’s housing transfer application. No evidence has been provided for this investigation to show when the resident raised this issue as a complaint, or what her specific concerns were, and so there is no way to reliably assess the landlord’s response.
  5. The resident sent the landlord an email on 25 February 2021 explaining why she did not think a property she had viewed was suitable. The landlord explained to this Service that it called the resident to discuss this issue, and she requested to escalate her complaint. No evidence has been provided for this investigation to show why the resident wanted to escalate her complaint.
  6.  In order to carry out an effective investigation, the Ombudsman expects landlords to provide evidence of a resident’s complaint and escalation. In this case, there should be clear and informative call notes from its conversations with the resident on 19 January and 25 February 2021. Such evidence may have allowed this investigation to robustly assess the landlord’s findings and explanations. The lack of information has impacted our understanding and assessment of this complaint. We cannot robustly determine whether the landlord’s responses and explanations were reasonable, as we do not know what issues the resident raised. This is a failing in complaint handling and record keeping.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The contents of the landlord’s complaint responses appear reasonable, but it is unclear what exactly the resident was complaining about and whether it addressed all parts of her complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered:
    1. to pay the resident £200 for the inconvenience and frustration that will have been caused by the failings identified in this investigation. This payment must be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide to this Service evidence of payment by that deadline.
    2. to consider this investigation’s findings and write an action plan setting out how it will ensure that its complaint handling and record keeping are comprehensive, accurate, and accessible. This action plan must be provided to the resident and to this Service within six weeks of this report.