Somerset West and Taunton Council (202109103)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109103

Somerset West and Taunton Council

28 February 2022

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 is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for insurance information and her reports of antisocial behaviour.

Background and summary of events

2. The property is a flat within a block of flats. The resident is a leaseholder, and the landlord is a local authority. Some of the aspects of this complaint appear to relate to the local authority’s role, rather than its role as a landlord.
3. On 29 October 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that her neighbour was “running a business from [his] flat”. She said it was not allowed according to the leasehold agreement, and she believed it could invalidate the housing insurance. The resident explained that the security doors (main entrance to the flats) were continuously wedged open by the neighbour, and she raised concerns over the potential damage that it could cause, as well as the safety risk it posed. She said that the neighbour had multiple vans which were regularly parked inappropriately, and were a health hazard. She asked that the landlord send a letter to the leaseholder regarding the neighbour’s actions and “start eviction procedures”.
4. The landlord responded to resident on 29 October 2020. It asked her to provide her address details in relation to her reports, as she had not specified the relevant addresses. It gave a deadline of three working days, after which the report would be closed if not received within that period.
5. There is no evidence of further contact or reports by the resident until she wrote to her MP on 20 January 2021 saying that she had not had a response from the landlord. She raised similar concerns to her October 2020 email to the landlord, and added further ASB-type behaviour by the neighbours. She said that she had asked the landlord for a copy of the home insurance documents, but had not received them (no evidence of the requests for insurance documents prior to 20 January 2021 has been provided for this investigation, and while it is not entirely clear, it appears the resident is referring to the building insurance, rather than home contents insurance). The MP passed the resident’s concerns on to the landlord.
6. On 15 February 2021 the resident asked the landlord to provide her with a copy of the home insurance for the block, which she believed was being potentially invalidated by the neighbours’ actions and activity. She said the neighbour smoked in the hallway which caused the fire alarm to go off constantly and had to ring the police on 12 February 2021 because the hallways smelt of cannabis.
7. On 17 February 2021 the landlord updated the MP, saying that it was still investigating the issues raised in the MP’s letter.
8. On 3 March 2021, the resident sent a complaint to the landlord. She said on 15 February 2021 she emailed its officer asking for a copy of the home insurance documents, but had not received them. She said she believed it was because the landlord knew the flat was not insured, as it allowed the neighbour to run his business from the flats. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day.
9. Internal emails between staff on 4 March 2021, showed the landlord had obtained details of the letting agent who managed the neighbour’s flat. The landlord said that it informed the letting agent, that the neighbour’s business was unacceptable under the terms of the lease. It said that the letting agent would liaise with the neighbour to advise him accordingly and “demand for this to cease.”  
10. The landlord sent its response to the resident’s complaint on 8 March 2021. It advised that its officer had now provided her with the insurance document she requested and had also updated her about its actions regarding the neighbour. It apologised for the delay providing the insurance information, and explained how the resident could contact the Ombudsman if she was dissatisfied with the outcome of her complaint.  At that time the landlord only had a one-stage complaint process.
11. On 21 May 2021 the resident wrote to the MP, confirming that the landlord had emailed the letting agent demanding that the neighbour stop operating his business from the flat. She confirmed that she had received the insurance document, and the contact details for the letting agent handling the renting of her neighbour’s flat. The resident said she had phoned the letting agent several times advising that the neighbour continued to operate the business from the flat, but nothing had changed. She explained that the flats came with a parking space but there was nowhere for her to park, because the spaces were occupied by the neighbour’s vans. The resident suggested that if the parking spaces were marked with flat numbers, everyone could have a space instead of some flats occupying more than one. She said the situation was starting to impact her mental health.
12. On 17 July 2021 the resident brought her complaint to this Service. She raised the same issues as in her email to the landlord in October 2020, and in her letter to her MP in January 2021. She provided information about the actions the landlord had taken through 2021, but said the landlord had done nothing to resolve the issues, and had ignored her communications. She stated that the issues were impacting her mental health and requested an apology from the landlord and an investigation of its handling of her complaint.
13. Between 22 July to 8 November 2021 internal correspondence between the landlord, its staff and MP, showed that it continued to chase the letting agent for updates on the outcome of their investigation. The landlord has told this Service that the neighbour moved away from the property in August 2021
14. This Service accepted the complaint for investigation in December 2021, and asked the landlord to provide information.
15. On 19 January 2021 the landlord provided detailed information for our investigation. It also explained that it had reviewed the resident’s reports and correspondence since early 2021, and had concluded that its complaint response did not address all the resident’s concerns. It said that it had been changing its complaint processes to have two stages, and if that had been in place at the time it would have provided a better escalation route for the resident to take her complaint. It acknowledged that it should have kept in contact with the resident to ensure that the necessary actions were taken to resolve the matters she had been reporting. The landlord explained that some of its services had been impacted by staffing and resourcing issues at the time of the resident’s complaint. It said it had since appointed more staff. It explained the learning it had taken from the complaint, and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.  It acknowledged wide ranging and numerous areas where it believed it had not provided good services to the resident, such as poor communication, delay, and not acting in line with its policies. It suggested compensation of £250 to the resident, for its service failures. To our knowledge, this response from the landlord, apologies, and compensation have not yet been shared with the resident.

Assessment and findings

16. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme requires that any complaint the Ombudsman investigates must first have been raised formally with the landlord. In this case, the only formal complaint made by the resident to the landlord was about the delay receiving the insurance information she asked for. The landlord responded promptly to that complaint, apologised for the delay, and provided the relevant information. It then referred the resident to the Ombudsman, which was correct and in line with its one-stage complaints process at that time. While it appears the insurance information delay was of approximately two weeks, the landlord’s response to the matter was reasonable and proportionate, and the delay was not a significant one.
17. The landlord used the opportunity of this Service’s request for information to re-evaluate its overall handling of the resident’s wider concerns, and concluded that it should have done more in the light of the issues she had been reporting. While there was no clear formal complaint by the resident about the landlord’s handling of her reports, some of her correspondence with the MP and landlord could reasonably have been taken to be complaints, regardless of whether that specific word was used. Accordingly, the landlord’s retroactive realisation that its handling of matters, and complaint handling, had not met a standard it considered appropriate was a positive one, albeit overdue. The learnings, explanations, acknowledgements, apology, and compensation it set out in its response to this Service were all reasonable and appropriate remedies to the failings it had identified, when considered against the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance. It only remains for the landlord to provide the same to the resident.

Determination (decision)

18. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

19. The finding in this investigation is contingent on the landlord providing to the resident, within four weeks of this report, the explanations, apologies, and compensation set out in its letter to this Service, and referred to in this report. The landlord should update this Service when it has done so.