London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202100735)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100735

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

16 June 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 resident’s complaint is about the level of compensation the landlord offered for the failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant who has been living in a one bedroom flat for five years.
3. The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure with responses required within ten working days at stage one and 20 working days at stage two respectively
4. The landlord has a compensation policy that allows it to consider awarding compensation to residents where it has been responsible for a delay in resolving an issue outside of its timescales.
5. The landlord has an ASB policy which says that it will review all reported cases of ASB and assign a priority for each case based on, amongst other things, ’the evidence available, the harm or potential harm to the reporting party, victims and witnesses, other residents and the local community…’.
6. The landlord’s classification for ASB reports is as follows:

1. High priority cases which it says it will log and have assessed by a case manager within one working day
2. Standard priority cases will be logged as ASB and assessed by a case manager within three working days.

7. The landlord’s ASB policy also states that it will record the decision it takes in regards to whether a report of ASB has provided enough substantive information to warrant any further action.

Summary of events

8. The resident and landlord have both advised that the resident began to report ASB by his neighbour during 2018 and that multiple reports were made. The landlord has however not provided any records of these reports or its actions during this period.
9. On 24 August 2020, the resident complained that his neighbour had woke him up at 3:30am by banging and shouting which continued until 1pm. The resident expressed that he felt he could not ’continue to live like this’ and that his mental health had relapsed for which he needed to see his doctor.
10. On 24 September 2020, the resident emailed the landlord saying that he had experienced his neighbour shouting and swearing. He sent the landlord a video of the incident saying that it was an example of why he no longer felt safe in his flat and therefore could not have his grandchildren over to visit.
11. On 13 October 2020, the resident complained to the landlord that the complaints he had been making about ASB from his neighbour since 2018 had been ignored by the landlord.
12. On 13 October 2020, the landlord sent the resident its stage one response  following a conversation it had with him earlier that day. It apologised that the resident ’had not been provided with the level of contact and service that we would expect for our residents’. It outlined questions the resident had raised and wanted answers to, which were:

1. What action had been taken relating to his reports of the neighbour using hammers to bang on the floor because he believed he had a rodent infestation.
2. In October 2019, the resident was told that the landlord was obtaining a police disclosure and making a referral to an external welfare agency in regards to the neighbour so he wanted confirmation of whether this had been done.
3. Why was his original ASB case closed down, suggesting there had been no further investigation.
4. What action was taken in regards to the video footage the resident sent to the landlord which showed instances of his neighbour’s behaviour.

13. The landlord said that as the resident had expressed a lack of confidence in the previous case manager that his ASB case had been re-assigned and that the new case manager would be in touch on a weekly basis.
14. On 22 October 2020, the landlord sent an email to the resident to answer the resident’s outstanding concerns as outlined in its stage one response. It said the following:

1. In 2018, the resident reported that he found his neighbour with a knife and a hammer suggesting that he had mice in his flat. The landlord’s records indicate that no warnings were issued by it to the neighbour at the time. However, it did speak to the neighbour about the incident in February 2020 and the neighbour apologised.
2. It apologised for the ’excessive’ amount of time which had elapsed since the resident reported the issue and said it should have responded sooner.
3. Disclosures to the police and other external agencies were made on 6 January 2020, 26 August 2020, 18 September 2020, 25 September 2020 and 13 October 2020 and it was still pursuing other external agencies in order to gain their assistance with the situation.
4. Regarding the closure of the resident’s ASB case, there was a marker on the case indicating that no further investigation was required, although this did not always reflect what is actually being done on the case but the resident should have received regular communication and a conversation should have been had with him to make sure the resident agreed prior to closing down his case.
5. It was working with its legal team regarding the video evidence the resident had submitted to see how this evidence could be used.

15. On 05 November 2020, the resident spoke to the landlord and explained that although he was happy with how things were handled since his case had been reallocated to another complaint manager, it was the handling for the two years prior to that which he was unhappy with. The resident said that the landlord had made apologies for the past errors but he felt that compensation was warranted.
16. On 6 November 2020, there was a fire in the resident’s building caused by his neighbour, which required the resident of the property to be evacuated and the emergency services called.
17. On 9 November 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident stating that it could not offer compensation because its compensation policy did not enable it to compensate for the issues considered within the resident’s complaint. It apologised that the communication and customer service the resident received fell short of acceptable standards.
18. On 9 November 2020, the resident called the landlord and further expressed that he was frustrated that previously he had not been contacted for 18 months regarding his reports of ASB and in that time he had been contacting the landlord for updates without receiving a reply. The resident said that this had mentally drained him.
19. On 16 November 2020, the resident replied stating that he did not accept the landlord’s decision, referring to the points he had made in his email to the landlord on 26 October 2020.
20. On 27 January 2021, the landlord had an internal discussion in regards to whether it should award the resident compensation. In that discussion the landlord noted that it had ’failed him because of the lack of communication to all of the residents which had caused them great distress’.
21. On 2 February 2021, the landlord had a phone call with the resident – in its call notes it said that having reviewed the complaint it agreed that the resident was ’let down for 2 years by L&Q’.
22. On the 2 February 2021, the landlord issued its final response in which it said the following:

1. It confirmed that the resident was looking for 50 percent of his rental payments in compensation for the two years he had endured ASB from his neighbour and for the landlord not fulfilling its duty of care towards him for this period.
2. It confirmed that the resident was satisfied with how his ASB case was being handled since it had been transferred to another case manager.
3. It stated that it agreed that the resident had been let down by the way his case had originally been handled.
4. It said that it has recognised its failures in progressing his case and sanctions had been put in place to ensure that this does not happen in the future.
5. It understands the stress not receiving the appropriate care had caused him and apologised.
6. It decided to award the resident compensation made up of £60 for the distress caused plus £60 per year for the length of time taken and doubled this to account for the two years the resident was subjected to ASB, making £240 in total.

23. On 8 February 2021, the resident replied rejecting the offer of compensation as he did not feel it adequately reflected the time it had taken to deal with his concerns, the risk to his safety, and the level of service he received from the landlord.
24. On 16 August 2021, the resident escalated the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

25. The landlord has admitted that there have been failures in its service to the resident. What is being considered here is whether the level of compensation offered to the resident is reasonable, given the circumstances.
26. Initially the resident’s case was being handled by a particular member of staff and when the resident complained, his case was transferred to a different case manager to take forward. The transfer to the new case manager took place between August to September 2020. The resident told the landlord during a phone call on 2 February 2021, that he was happy with the service he was receiving since his case had been transferred to a different case manager. He said the complaint he was making related to the period where his case was being handled by the original case manager and it was during that period that he received no response from the landlord to his reports of ASB.
27. This Service has, on three occasions, asked the landlord for its records covering the period of the resident’s complaint. In particular, the request was made for correspondence during the time when the resident’s case was being handled by the landlord’s original case manager, which the landlord has failed to provide. Instead, it has provided information starting from August 2020, which relates to its actions from the point when the resident’s case was already in the process of being transferred to another member of staff.  It has confirmed that these are the only records it holds.
28. It is reasonable to expect a landlord to have retained records of its interactions with the resident, including correspondence it has received from him and a log of actions it took in response. The landlord’s failure to maintain and provide records for the period of the resident’s complaint was inappropriate and is a record keeping failure.
29. The landlord has not disputed what the resident has said about the length of time it took for it to respond to him and his ASB concerns. In its initial response to the complaint on October 2020, it confirmed that the resident had reported ASB in 2018 and apologised for what it said was the ’excessive’ time that had elapsed since the resident had raised concerns.
30. The issue reported in 2018, started with the neighbour banging on the resident’s ceiling. When he went to investigate, the resident said that he found his neighbour in a communal area with a hammer and a knife with the neighbour saying he believed he had a rodent infestation. The landlord has acknowledged that it does not have any records showing that it contacted the neighbour about this incident until February 2020. When it did speak to the neighbour, he confirmed that the incident did occur and, although the neighbour apologised, the landlord took no direct action regarding the incident. Based on the landlord’s ASB policy, the resident’s reports should have been logged and assessed within one working day, but this did not happen which was a failure on the landlord’s part. Considering the nature of the incident and the potential safety risks to the resident, it was inappropriate that he was left for approximately two years without receiving a response from the landlord.
31. The resident said that the landlord’s lack of response to reports of continual ASB by his neighbour meant that his mental health deteriorated and that the experience had ’drained’ him. As a result, he advised that he had to seek help from his doctor. The landlord has also said in an internal email on 27 January 2021, that it had failed residents with its lack of communication regarding the ASB issues from the neighbour which had caused its other residents ’great distress’.
32. The resident said that because of the landlord’s lack of response he did not feel safe in his home and was unable to have his grandchildren at his home to visit. The concerns that the resident raised were serious as the issues he reported represented a potential risk to his safety. It is understandable that the resident was therefore concerned with the safety risks of having his grandchildren visit his flat, particularly as he had not had any assurances from the landlord regarding what would be done about the ASB. This Service notes that on 6 November 2020, the neighbour set fire to his own flat causing the block to be evacuated and requiring assistance from multiple emergency services.
33. In summary, for approximately two years from 2018, the resident made multiple reports of ASB from his neighbour some of which presented a potentially serious risk to his safety and welfare. The resident says that this affected his mental health and his quality of life due to fears for their safety. The landlord agrees that it received multiple reports of ASB from the resident and that it did not respond to these reports for approximately two years, which is not in keeping with its ASB policies. The landlord has acknowledged that it caused ’great distress’ by its lack of communication.
34. Although the landlord has not disputed that it mishandled the resident’s ASB reports over two years, it only awarded £240 compensation when it reviewed the matter through its complaints process. This level of compensation is within the range that the Ombudsman would recommend for a failure to meet service standards that had limited impact. However, given the period involved in this case, the potential seriousness of the resident’s allegations and the acknowledged substantial impact that the landlord concluded this will have had, this level of compensation was insufficient.
35. In summary, the landlord acknowledged that it failed in managing the resident’s ASB allegations appropriately between 2018-2020 but the level of compensation it awarded was insufficient given the circumstances of the case.

Determination (decision)

36. In accordance with the paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the level of compensation it offered for the failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Reasons

37. The landlord did not respond appropriately to the resident’s ASB allegations or keep records of its actions during 2018-2020. It awarded compensation but this did not sufficiently recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its service failure.

Orders

38. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £400 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused to him by the service failures in its handling of his ASB reports (in addition to the £240 it proposed through its complaints process).

The landlord should confirm compliance with this order to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.