Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202003454)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003454

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

23 September 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) reports;
2. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant whose tenancy agreement began on 3 December 2012 and describes the property as a one-bedroom third-floor flat. The property is within a mid-rise block with a communal front entrance door.
The tenancy agreement shows that:
1. the landlord will not allow any sort of harassment, victimisation or nuisance and using, or threatening to use, violence falls under its definition of harassment;
2. the landlord is responsible for repairs to outside doors and these will be carried out in line with its published repairs timescales;
3. the resident can apply to move through a ‘transfer’ albeit this is likely to take several years unless there are “strong medical or social reasons”.
The landlord’s website has a section on ‘assault’ that shows that residents should initially report criminal incidents to the Police but that they should then be submitted to the landlord who will respond within two working days.
The landlord has an ASB policy that shows that it will:
1. encourage residents to report incidents to the Police;
2. be clear from the start about what it can, or cannot, do and communicate with victims regularly;
3. investigate and respond to reports quickly and thoroughly, assessing harm and impact;
4. offer early interventions such as mediation, acceptable behaviour contracts and warnings;
5. “try to protect and help victims stay in their homes, but… may move residents… to alternative accommodation” where there is Police support;
6. make sure that perpetrators are aware of the impact of their actions and take quick, decisive and robust action;
7. help perpetrators change their behaviour by ensuring they access support while being clear about the consequences of their behaviour.
The landlord has a property transfer scheme that allows for residents to be given a priority banding, depending on their circumstances, as follows:
1. ‘Band 1’ includes situations where the “Police or other involved agencies recommend and support a move to another property, because of a serious risk to life due to safeguarding, anti-social behaviour or domestic abuse”;
2. ‘Band 2’ includes situations where a resident “has been the victim of targeted anti-social behaviour or domestic abuse in the last six months (from date of request) and are still experiencing the impact of these behaviours”;
3. ‘Band 3’ includes situations where a resident “has been the victim of targeted anti-social behaviour or domestic abuse in the last 12 months (from date of request) and are still experiencing the impact of these behaviours”;
4. ‘Band 4’ where the household has no social needs.
The landlord has a complaints policy that sets out a formal two-stage process where it is required to respond within 10 working days (at stage one) and 20 working days (at stage two) respectively.
The landlord has compensation guidance that allows for it to make financial awards to residents where significant upset has been caused due to something it did or did not do.
The resident’s complaint partly concerns a former neighbour who was also a tenant of the landlord and an alleged perpetrator of ASB. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the neighbour’s tenancy agreement but it would be reasonable to conclude that the same, or similar, tenancy conditions applied as to the resident.
The resident and landlord have both provided evidence of historic ASB reports made by the resident. These related to noise nuisance (slamming doors and loud music) and use of cannabis in the block between February 2014 and May 2018. They also included concerns raised on a few occasions between January 2017 and January 2018 about a faulty communal entrance door. However, this investigation is focused on events that occurred during the 12 months prior to the resident’s initial complaint (of November 2020).

Summary of Events

The resident wrote to the landlord and local authority on 24 February 2020, reporting an incident two days earlier when his nextdoor neighbour had driven towards him and threatened to kill him. He said he had stayed away from his property as a result and that this followed incidents where the neighbour had kicked his door a few months previously and threatened another resident in the block. He provided a crime reference number and denied counter allegations of racist language that the neighbour had previously made against him.
The resident wrote to the Police on 6 July 2020, providing photographs of his injuries (following an alleged assault the week before) and advising he was yet to hear back from the landlord.
The resident approached this Service in late July 2020, advising that he had been verbally and physically attacked by his neighbour on 30 June 2020 and the landlord had failed to do anything to resolve the situation. The Ombudsman raised these concerns with the landlord on 13 August 2020.
The resident submitted an online complaint to the landlord on 9 November 2020 on the grounds that:
1. there had been no tenancy enforcement action against the neighbour following the assault on 30 June 2020, despite the neighbour having admitted to it;
2. he had reported events in September 2019 and March 2020 where he had been threatened which meant that the assault could have been avoided if the landlord had acted.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 November 2020, acknowledging his concern about an ASB case being closed and asking to speak to him to discuss this. A telephone appointment was later agreed for 19 November 2020.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 December 2020, asking for an update on the noise situation (as it had not heard from him for a while) and advising that the ASB case related to the alleged assault would be closed as there were no further actions for it to take.
The resident replied to the landlord on 8 December 2020, questioning whether it had engaged with the Police effectively (as the neighbour had admitted the assault) and advising that he had been in discussion with its housing services manager and had provided dates and times of drug use and dealing that the landlord should check CCTV for.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 December 2020. It advised that housing officers would be in touch to discuss his management transfer request and what information was required from him so it could be presented to an assessment panel.
The landlord arranged the closure of the resident’s complaint on 23 December 2020. It noted that it had spoken to the resident and had concluded that:
1. it had liaised with the Police but was unable to take enforcement action against the neighbour while their decision remained as it did (which was apparently just a letter sent to the neighbour);
2. it had agreed to review this approach if the Police changed their stance following a complaint the resident had made to them;
3. it had discussed ongoing ASB that the resident had reported, including noise from slamming doors and an early morning alarm, but it was unsure that this was coming from the same neighbour’s flat and the resident said this was not happening every day;
4. it had discussed the resident’s options for a move through a mutual exchange or local authority application and told him he would be contacted early the following year regarding the potential of a management move.
The resident approached this Service again in February 2021, advising that ASB was still ongoing and that the landlord had delayed taking any action after the June 2020 assault.
The resident advised this Service in May 2021 that he was concerned about block security as the communal door entry system had been faulty for more than a year, allowing rough sleeping and drug dealing. He added that the CCTV had also not been working for a long time. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to progress the resident’s complaint on 10 June 2021.
The landlord issued a final complaint response to the resident on 7 July 2021. It concluded that:
1. it had liaised with the Police to find out if the “ruling” on the neighbour had changed but it had not;
2. it had lengthy conversations with a previous neighbour about noise nuisance but was unable to pursue legal action;
3. it asked whether the door slamming reports related to the previous neighbour (who moved out in April 2021) or the new neighbour and offered mediation;
4. its housing services manager had offered advice on options to move through mutual exchange, the local authority housing application and the management transfer process (which it could consider again but would need to take into account that the alleged perpetrator of the assault had moved out);
5. it received a report in July 2021 from him about cannabis, which he said he did not wish it to pursue, but it would write to all residents to remind them this was a criminal matter.
The resident replied to the landlord on the same date, expressing continued dissatisfaction on the grounds that:
1. he had reported ASB by his neighbour between the assault (in June 2020) and when they moved out (which he later advised was in April 2021) but the landlord had not communicated and taken minimal action;
2. he had reported criminal events, including drug dealing, in the block over many years but the landlord had done nothing;
3. the faulty communal door entrance system represented a health and safety risk to residents;
4. the landlord was too quick to close cases and complaints without taking actions.
The resident advised this Service in September 2021 that the communal door entry system was recently repaired but had quickly broken down again and he remained dissatisfied that the landlord had offered no explanation as to why it had failed to act on historic ASB reports (about cannabis use, drug dealing, threats and vandalism to his front door) and delayed by almost a month in acting on the June 2020 assault report.

Assessment and findings

ASB Reports

The landlord has provided this Service with limited evidence regarding the actions it took during 2020-21 in response to the resident’s specific concerns about a neighbour of his, both before and after an alleged assault occurred in late June 2020. Clear record-keeping is a core function of a housing service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its obligations.
Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord is able to monitor and manage outstanding actions and provide accurate information to residents. It is therefore inappropriate that the landlord’s records of how it handled the resident’s ASB reports during 2020-21 consist only of the correspondence it exchanged with him as part of the complaints process and there is no housing or ASB case file showing specific reports it received and how it actioned these.
The resident has advised that he made two specific reports where he alleged that his neighbour had made threats to him. Evidence of one of these – in February 2020 – has been offered and this showed that the landlord was made aware of an incident where the resident had felt in danger of serious harm and confirmed the Police were aware. The landlord’s ASB policy shows that it was obliged to contact the resident regularly, assess harm and impact, investigate quickly and contact the perpetrator. It is inappropriate that there is no record that the landlord took any such actions before the alleged assault happened in June 2020.
It is unclear from evidence provided to this Service exactly how and when the landlord initially became aware of the resident’s assault report. However, the landlord knew of the resident’s concerns about its handling of the report at least as early as 13 August 2020 when this Service communicated with it. In response to the assault allegation, the landlord was obliged to contact the resident within two working days (according to its website) and assess harm, investigate and take robust action (according to its ASB policy). It is again inappropriate that there is no record, prior to it closing the ASB case in December 2020, that it regularly communicated with the resident, considered the potential for further incidents, undertook any investigations (beyond subsequently telling the resident that it had spoken to the Police) or put the allegations to the perpetrator. The landlord’s decision that formal enforcement action was not possible due to the Police approach not to pursue criminal proceedings may have been correct but it is unreasonable that there is no evidence as to how it reached this decision and whether it took any steps to consider less severe intervention methods or at least warn the alleged perpetrator that the allegations would represent a breach of tenancy.
The resident made further comments in December 2020 that he had informed a member of the landlord’s staff about possible drug use and dealing in the block. He subsequently linked this to a fault with the block door entry system in May 2021 which he said had been ongoing for more than a year. It is unreasonable that, despite the resident’s previous reports of a faulty door during 2017-18, there is no record that the landlord raised a repair order or took any steps to consider additional security measures at the block given the resident’s reports of criminal activity. The resident since advised in September 2021 that a repair was undertaken but that a fault occurred soon after – a recommendation is therefore made below in this regard.
The resident and landlord exchanged correspondence during the complaints process regarding a potential move. The landlord has responded reasonably by signposting the resident to options such as a mutual exchange or local authority bidding and guided him on information that it was likely to need to consider his case for a management transfer through its own property transfer scheme. Given no such information has been provided and the Police did not recommend that the resident should be moved, there was no service failure on the part of the landlord in it not transferring the resident to alternative accommodation.
In summary, the landlord’s inaction in response to the resident’s ASB reports in February, June and December 2020 was inappropriate and will have led to uncertainty for the resident as to whether the landlord was willing to address his concerns, particularly the serious allegations about his neighbour. Its delay in completing repairs to the communal front door will also have contributed to him feeling unsafe.

Complaint handling

The resident initially made a complaint on 9 November 2020 about the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports. The landlord’s complaints policy obliged it to issue a stage one complaint response to the resident within 10 working days. Although there is evidence that it discussed the complaint with him during mid-November 2020, it is inappropriate that the complaint was not closed until 23 December 2020 and that a full stage one complaint response was not provided.
Further, the resident’s November 2020 complaint referred to his concerns at how the landlord had dealt with his previous reports in late 2019 and early 2020. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord reviewed its handling of these reports or provided the resident with an answer to this aspect of his complaint either in writing or by telephone. It is therefore unreasonable that the landlord failed to fully answer the resident’s initial complaint.
The resident’s continued dissatisfaction was passed to the landlord via this Service on 10 June 2021. The landlord’s complaints policy obliged it to issue a final complaint response within 20 working days; it did so on 7 July 2021 which was therefore within an appropriate timescale.
In summary, the landlord delayed unreasonably in its handling of the resident’s initial complaint and failed to answer all his concerns.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) reports.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not demonstrate that it assessed harm, communicated regularly with the resident, investigated his allegations or liaised with the alleged perpetrator(s) when it received ASB reports about threats, an assault and other criminal activity at the block during 2020.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial complaint within an appropriate timescale.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £575, made up of:
1. £500 in recognition of the distress and time and trouble caused to him by the failures in its handling of his ASB reports;
2. £75 in recognition of the distress and time and trouble caused to him by the failures in its handling of the related complaint.

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

Recommendations

The landlord to inspect the communal front entrance door within four weeks of the date of this report and write to the resident to confirm its findings within a further two weeks; if any repairs are required, it should provide a specification for these, including the likely timescale for the completion of works.
The landlord to review its handling of this case and ensure that relevant staff are able to act in accordance with its ASB policy when considering reports of threats in future and that they keep accurate records of actions taken.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to these recommendations to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.