Arcon Housing Association Limited (202001719)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001719

Arcon Housing Association Limited

16 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding a breach in confidentiality.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the former tenant of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.
The resident’s tenancy for the property ended in November 2019.
The property is a flat.

Summary of events

In March 2020 the resident contacted this Service setting out that the landlord had failed to respond to various concerns which she had raised under its complaint procedure.
On 29 April 2020 this Service wrote to the landlord to advising that the resident had been in touch reporting that it had failed to respond to issues which she had raised in relation to her tenancy under its complaint procedure. This Service requested that the landlord contact the resident regarding her concerns and to provide a formal response to the issues which she wished to raise under its complaint procedure, if it had not already done so.
On 6 May 2020 the landlord provided its stage one response, following contact from this Service in April 2020 regarding outstanding complaints, and a conversation with the resident on 4 May 2020. The landlord opened its response by confirming that it understood that the resident wished to complain about the following matters:
1. Harassment from a neighbouring tenant (the tenant).
2. A breach of confidentiality by a member of its staff (officer X).
The landlord noted that these matters had not previously been registered as a formal complaint.
In respect of harassment from the tenant the landlord said:
1. It had investigated the conduct of the tenant under its ASB procedure.
2. The investigation was opened on 4 April 2018 following reports by the resident that “someone was ringing [her] intercom late at night”. The landlord confirmed that in response to the allegations it issued the resident with diary sheets however they were not returned. The landlord noted that a Housing Officer (the HO) attended the property to collect the diary sheets but was informed by the resident that she had sent them to Shelter and requested that the HO did not visit the property again. The landlord confirmed that it therefore closed the ASB case on 6 June 2018.
3. On 5 September 2018 the resident requested an ASB case review (review A). The landlord confirmed that following review A, a number of actions were recommended including that it should install a privacy button to the resident’s intercom and to explore CCTV in the communal area. The landlord noted that the privacy button had already been installed to the resident’s intercom. The landlord confirmed that it explored CCTV at that time however it was not possible as there was no suitable power source available.
4. On 2 December 2018 the resident complained that someone had knocked on the property’s front door late at night. The resident stated that she believed that it was the tenant. The landlord confirmed that in response the HO contacted the tenant who denied the allegation. The landlord advised that it notified the resident of the outcome of its conversation with the tenant and confirmed “the difficulties [it was] having with the installation of CCTV”. The landlord added that the HO also notified the resident of the correct procedure for reporting ASB – centrally, rather than to individual staff members.
5. On 16 December 2018 the resident reported that someone had knocked on her door late at night and to request to be rehoused. The landlord set out that it wrote to the resident on 18 December 2018 confirming that it had been unable to install CCTV, the tenants had denied the allegations and that there were no independent witnesses to the incident. The landlord confirmed to the resident that she should report ASB centrally or via diary sheets. The landlord noted that it did not receive any further ASB reports from the resident at that time and on 6 February 2019 she confirmed no new incidents.
6. On 1 March 2019 the resident reported that the door knocking had occurred again. The landlord confirmed that in response it contacted the tenant who “strongly” denied the allegation.
7. On 23 October 2019 a new ASB case was opened as the resident reported that someone was knocking on the property’s door late at night and she suspected that it was the tenant’s son. The landlord confirmed that on 6 November 2019 it wrote to the resident setting out the actions it had taken so far.
8. In response to the resident’s ongoing ASB allegations it explored the option of temporary CCTV which was installed on 20 December 2019 using the resident’s power supply. The landlord noted that it agreed to reimburse the resident for excess electricity.
9. A second case review (review B) was held on 7 January 2020 following a request from the resident in December 2019. The landlord confirmed that a number of actions were agreed including that the CCTV would stay in place “beyond 28 days if necessary” and it would offer mediation.
10. On 16 and 20 January 2020 the resident reported that someone had knocked on her door. The landlord confirmed that it reviewed the corresponding CCTV footage however it did not show anyone interfering with the property’s door.
11. On 22 January 2020 the HO visited the block to check that the communal door closing was not causing the property’s letterbox to move slightly. The landlord confirmed that it was not.
12. On 11 March 2020 it instructed for the CCTV to be removed as the resident had made no further complaints. The landlord confirmed that it was happy to pay the resident £30 for electricity.
13. There was no evidence to support that the tenant was harassing the resident.
In respect of a breach of confidentially by officer X:
1. The resident’s concerns about a breach of confidentially by officer X had not previously been recorded as a formal complaint as the resident had not provided the necessary information.
2. On 28 February 2020 the resident contacted it to make a complaint that the estate caretaker had shared personal information regarding a former colleague with tenants on the estate. The landlord confirmed that in response it contacted the resident on 4 March 2020 to discuss the matter and to request further details. The landlord advised that as the resident did not provide the information following the call it emailed her on 9 March 2020 to request the information again. The landlord noted that the information was not provided.
3. During its conversation with the resident on 4 May 2020 it established that the resident had provided the information using an incorrect email address and therefore it was not received. The landlord confirmed that the resident forwarded the information to the correct email address and it made enquiries with the witness she had provided details for. The landlord confirmed that the witness advised that they were not aware of any breaches of confidentiality and did not want to be involved in the complaint. The landlord advised that it was therefore unable to take the matter further as there was no evidence that personal information had been shared by the caretaker. The landlord added the caretaker no longer worked for the organisation.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may request to escalate her complaint within 10 working days if she was not satisfied with its response.
On 13 May 2020 the resident responded to the landlord’s stage one response. In summary the resident said:
1. The police had visited the tenant in relation to harassment towards her, including door knocking and ringing the intercom.
2. The tenants had been “offensive” towards her, including verbal abuse.
3. She had returned diary sheets to the landlord via recorded delivery.
4. The HO officer and customer service team were unresponsive to her reports of ASB.
5. The doorbell which she had installed on the property’s front door took pictures.
6. She wished to move from the property, including as the situation was impacting on her health.
On or around 19 May 2020, exact date not known, the landlord responded to the resident. The landlord set out that it had reviewed the resident’s escalation request and considered that there were two outstanding issues which needed to be addressed. The landlord confirmed that in order to do so the resident should provide evidence that she returned diary sheets to it via recorded delivery and information regarding the doorbell which was able to take pictures.
On 4 July 2020, following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord advising that she had been in touch setting out that she was unhappy with its stage one response. This Service asked the landlord to contact the resident to discuss the complaint.
On 8 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident advising that it had been informed by this Service that she was unhappy with its stage one response. The landlord confirmed that it had requested further details from the resident on 19 May 2020 in response to her escalation request however this had not been received.
On 9 July 2020 the resident responded setting out that the landlord was already aware of the information it was requesting, including as it had seen pictures from her doorbell. The resident concluded her correspondence by confirming that she was “now working with the police”.
On 21 July 2020 the landlord repeated that in order to escalate the resident’s complaint it required her to respond to its request for further information.
On 22 July 2020 the resident responded setting out that she had already provided the landlord with the information it required. The resident stated that the police were aware of the tenant’s conduct and her completed diary sheets. The resident also suggested, in separate correspondence on the same day, that she may sue the landlord “for breach of [her] tenancy agreement under the harassment act”.
The landlord informed this Service that on 3 August 2020 it chased the resident for the outstanding information again.
On 9 August 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord setting out that it had not responded to her complaint regarding harassment from the tenant.
The landlord informed this Service that it called the resident to discuss the complaint on 7 September 2020 however she terminated the call.
On 7 September 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord advising that a charity had fitted the doorbell to the property’s door prior to the installation of the CCTV. Within her email the resident stated that she continued to be harassed by the tenant, the police were aware of the matter and had copies of her diary sheets.
On 9 September 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident requesting further details confirming when the charity had fitted the doorbell to the property. The landlord also asked the resident to confirm if she made the referral to the charity herself. In response the resident replied asking “how many times [did she] have to answer the same question about the door”.
On 24 September 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding her escalation request following its stage one response. In summary the landlord said:
1. Despite requesting information from the resident in May 2020 to progress her complaint to stage two she had not provided the information. The landlord confirmed that the information was proof of recorded delivery for the dairy sheets and information regarding the doorbell.
2. The resident had provided the name of the charity who she reported had fitted the doorbell and advised that it should “check its records”. The landlord confirmed that it had no information on file that it was aware the doorbell had been fitted by the charity.
3. As the resident had not provided it with the required information it had not been able to progress the complaint and carry out a stage two investigation. The landlord confirmed that it would therefore close the complaint unless the resident provided the information within 30 days. The landlord advised that alternatively the resident could refer the complaint to this Service for adjudication if it was unhappy with its position/ response.
During September 2020 the resident continued to raise concerns regarding the conduct of the tenant to the landlord. The resident confirmed that this included that they had super glued the spy holes on the property’s front door, knocked on her front door, rung the intercom system and used abusive/ offensive language. The resident noted that the police were aware of the tenant’s conduct.
On 24 October 2020 the resident wrote to her MP, copying in this Service. The resident set out that despite reporting harassment by the tenant, which was ongoing, the landlord had failed to take action. The resident confirmed that she would like this Service to investigate.
On 2 November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord providing a crime reference number in relation to an incident with the tenant. The resident stated that she wanted the tenant “arrested for the harassment”.
On 8 November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord confirming that she had decided to move as the landlord has failed to address harassment by the tenant.
On 17 November 2020 the resident referred her complaint to this Service for adjudication. Within her referral the resident confirmed that the landlord had failed to investigate and resolve harassment by the tenant, despite evidence and police involvement. The resident advised that the impact of the harassment had impacted on her health and therefore she had made the decision to end her tenancy at the property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour

In cases of ASB the role of the Ombudsman is to investigate how a landlord has handled any reports of ASB it has received and to determine if it has acted in accordance with its policies and procedures, taking into consideration the issues being reported.
The landlord has adopted the definition of ASB as detailed in section 2 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 which states that ASB means behaviour by a person which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person, conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises or conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The landlord has an ASB policy which sets out that it will investigate all ASB and it will use a range of actions to help a victim of ASB including mediation, warnings and legal actions. The policy also confirms that it will work with other agencies, such as the police, to tackle ASB.
As the resident’s allegations could fall within the landlord’s definition of ASB it was therefore necessary for the landlord to respond to the allegations and to take action to resolve any issues it identified.
The first record of ASB reported by the resident which the Ombudsman has identified was in April 2018 and was “banging on front door and ringing intercom into early hours” by the tenant. In response the evidence shows that the landlord contacted the resident for further information and requested that she complete diary sheets. The landlord also contacted the alleged perpetrator by letter – the tenant – to inform them of the allegation made against them. In the Ombudsman’s opinion these actions were appropriate in order for the landlord to gather information to determine next steps and whether further intervention was required. On 6 June 2018 the landlord closed the case as the resident had not provided diary sheets. This was reasonable as without any evidence the landlord was limited in the action it could take. The Ombudsman notes that in July 2018 the landlord liaised with the police regarding the resident’s allegations who advised “no police issue”.
In September 2018 an ASB case review – review A – was held, at the request of the resident. The evidence following the review noted that there were “no incidents or crimes reported by [the resident] which [had] not been actioned or investigated”. The case review also set out that the landlord had installed a new intercom to the property to “assist in preventing malicious calls” and the landlord should explore CCTV in the communal areas. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord determined following the case review that CCTV was not possible at that time due to installation issues. It was appropriate that the landlord, however, explored the possibility of CCTV as it had been put forward as a recommendation.
Within the landlord’s stage one response, dated 6 May 2020, the landlord set out that between December 2018 and March 2019 it responded to further ASB allegations from the resident by requesting that she complete diary sheets and discussing the allegations with the tenant. The Ombudsman has not identified any ASB records from this period. This is unsatisfactory as the landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of the actions it has taken to support that it was taking action in respect of the resident’s allegations.
In response to the resident’s on-going allegations about the tenant in late 2019 the evidence shows that the landlord arranged for CCTV to be installed, via the property. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was appropriate, in order to corroborate the resident’s allegations via an independent source. The landlord records show that it reviewed CCTV footage from the times and dates the resident reported ASB. As the landlord found that the CCTV did not show anyone interfering with the property’s door it was reasonable for it to conclude no ASB by the tenant and to decommission the camera in March 2020.
Following the landlord’s stage one response, and from May 2020 the resident advised the landlord that she continued to experience ASB by the tenant. As part of her contacts with the landlord the resident set out that the police were aware of the ASB, the police had spoken with the tenant and she had been provided with a crime reference in relation to an incident of harassment by the tenant. The resident also confirmed that she had submitted diary sheets to the landlord.
While it was reasonable for the landlord to confirm that it had not received any diary sheets from the resident following a review of its records, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord made any enquiries with the police regarding the resident’s ASB allegations about the tenant at this time. This is unsatisfactory. As the resident had reported involvement by the police the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have contacted the police in order to determine if it was aware of the matter and if so, what action it was taking. This would have been in line with the landlord’s ASB policy regarding working with other agencies and to determine if it needed to take action itself.
Further the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord took any other steps from May 2020 to investigate the resident’s ASB allegations other than requesting proof that she had submitted diary sheets via recorded delivery and details of the charity who had installed the doorbell, and therefore to satisfy itself that no intervention was needed. While it was not unreasonable for the landlord to want to review the diary sheets which the resident said she had completed in order to make a decision on the case, the landlord could have taken further action to investigate the on-going reports such as interviewing the resident and the tenant about the allegations in addition to seeking to review any evidence from the doorbell. The landlord’s lack of response to the resident’s allegations suggests that the landlord was not taking her reports seriously at that time.
The evidence shows that the resident ended her tenancy in November 2020.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding a breach in confidentiality

In response to the resident’s concerns regarding a breach in confidentiality the evidence shows that it requested additional information from her. The landlord’s approach was reasonable in order that it could undertake a focussed investigation to determine whether intervention was needed or not.
The evidence shows that the landlord received the information from the resident in May 2020 and on receipt it made enquiries with the witness she had provided details of. This was appropriate in order to investigate the matter.
Following the landlord’s discussion with the witness the landlord’s position was that it was unable to take further action. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s position was reasonable as the witness has not corroborated the resident’s allegations and it had no evidence to act on. It was also reasonable as the landlord confirmed that the caretaker no longer worked for it, and therefore it would be unable to take any action against them. Further the Ombudsman notes that there was no adverse effect on the resident in relation the allegation as it was not concerning her personal information.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident contacted this Service in respect of her complaint in March 2020 reporting that the landlord had failed to address her concerns under its complaint procedure. While the resident’s concerns are noted the Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence of a complaint which the landlord had failed to address. Following this Service’s referral, the evidence shows that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her concerns and promptly issued a formal response. This was appropriate.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 13 May 2020. On receipt of the resident’s request the landlord requested further information from the landlord in order for it to address her outstanding concerns in relation to ASB. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s request was not unreasonable in order for it to fully address the concerns which the resident had raised.
The evidence shows that between May and September 2020 the landlord made several requests to the resident for the information. The evidence further shows that in response the resident confirmed that the information was already available to the landlord and confirmed that the doorbell was provided by a charity. The Ombudsman notes that it was the landlord’s view that the despite the resident’s responses the information she had provided were not sufficient in order to progress the complaint. In the Ombudsman’s opinion when it became clear in July/ August 2020 that no further information would be provided by the resident, the landlord should have taken steps at that point to issue its final position on the complaint, as it did in September 2020. This would have brought the issue to a close at an earlier time, in addition to providing the resident with the option of referring her complaint to this Service sooner. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion this omission does not alone amount to a service failure, as the landlord was seeking to progress the complaint.
Within her escalation request dated May 2020 the resident stated that she wished to move to a new property, as the ASB was impacting on her health. In responding to the resident’s complaint the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord addressed this issue. This is unsatisfactory. The landlord should have explained to the resident her options to seek alternative accommodation and why she may not be eligible for a management transfer due to her ASB concerns.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Service failure by the landlord in response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. No maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s concerns regarding a breach in confidentiality.
3. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour

While the evidence shows that the landlord did take steps to investigate the resident’s reports of ASB in early 2018 and early 2020 by requesting that she keep diary sheets, speaking with the tenant and installing and reviewing CCTV, overall, the Ombudsman is not satisfied with the landlord’s response to the resident’s ASB allegations. This is because the landlord did not retain records demonstrating its response to the resident’s ASB concerns between December 2018 and March 2019 and it did not take steps to follow up her ASB concerns with the police after May 2020 or action its own investigation in response to these allegations.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding a breach in confidentiality

The landlord’s decision that it was unable to take any further action in response to the resident’s concerns regarding a breach in confidentiality was reasonable as it was made following enquiries with her witness, who did not corroborate the allegation, and because the caretaker no longer worked for it.

The landlord’s complaint handling

While the landlord could have taken a more proactive approach in responding to the resident’s stage two request, by providing a response at an earlier time when it became clear that she would not be providing any further information, the omission does not amount to a service failure. This is because the landlord was engaging with the complaint, in an attempt to ensure that it was able to provide a comprehensive response to all the issues which she had raised. However, it was unsatisfactory that the landlord did not address all issues which the resident raised within her complaint, namely in relation to her request to move, therefore denying her a comprehensive response to her complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident £250 compensation for the shortfalls in responding to her ASB concerns and £50 for not addressing all aspects of her complaint, within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure that it responds to all reports of ASB by a resident to determine whether intervention or liaison with another agency is required. The landlord should ensure that it keeps appropriate records documenting its response.