Your Housing Limited (202116023)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116023

Your Housing Limited

4 July 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:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of stalking and noise nuisance.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is an apartment within a housing scheme for over 55s. The resident has an Autism Spectrum Condition and he has made the landlord aware of this.
  2. On 26 May 2021 the resident reported to the police that somebody he believed had stalked him in the past, had moved onto the housing scheme and was stalking him again. (Neighbour A). The police took no further action. The resident reported the issue to his landlord as anti-social behaviour (ASB) in June 2021 and also reported loud music had been coming from the flat upstairs (Neighbour B). The landlord registered both concerns as ASB incidents and visited Neighbour B who said the music wasn’t from his property. Police also spoke to the landlord to explain they were not taking further action against Neither A. No further action was taken by the landlord at this stage.
  3. On 14 June 2021 the resident made another report to police about Neighbour A being outside the resident’s window. The police took no further action following this incident. On 15 June 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to discuss the ASB and had to call several times as nobody had called him back. The scheme manager spoke to him and advised that the incidents did not amount to ASB. The resident raised a complaint the same day as he did not think his ASB reports were being taken seriously and the landlord noted that the outcome he sought was to receive a written apology from it and more cooperation form the scheme manager. The complaint was allocated to a complaint handler as an informal complaint on 18 June 2021 but there is no record of any action being taken to resolve the complaint.
  4. On 22 September 2021 the resident reported to the police that Neighbour A was acting suspiciously outside his property. The police visited the resident but did not take any further action. The resident made an ASB report to the landlord the following day and requested CCTV footage of the front of his property. The landlord spoke to the resident and advised him to follow police advice and advised that the police would request CCTV if they needed it. The landlord took no further action. The resident made three further reports to police about Neighbour A in October 2021. No further action was taken by the police.  
  5. The resident contacted this Service on 13 October 2021 as he said he had raised a complaint to the landlord in June 2021 about how the landlord had dealt with his reports of ASB and had still not received a response. This Service wrote to the landlord that day and again on 4 November 2021 to ask it to contact the resident.
  6. In its stage one complaint response issued on 17 November 2021 the landlord said that as the Police had looked into the stalking reports and had taken no further action, the landlord would not be taking further action under its ASB policy. It said its staff had witnessed the tapping noise during its visit to the resident’s property but did the landlord not think it was coming from within the housing scheme. It said the resident should continue to record when the noise was made and if necessary the landlord would escalate it for a “Legal Co-ordinator to review, to check that all appropriate action has been taken and options to find the source have been explored”. It also said that it had offered the resident the choice of moving to another housing scheme. It said it had contacted the resident’s legal advocate and autism key worker (as requested by the resident), and would keep them updated.
  7. The resident escalated the complaint as he felt the landlord had only mentioned the recent action it had taken about his ASB reports and had not commented on its response in June 2021.
  8. In its stage two complaint response, issued on 18 January 2022 the landlord said that it had acted in line with its ASB policy and had worked with the police and the resident’s support worker to try to find a resolution. However, as the matter remained unresolved, it should have escalated the resident’s concerns. It said its Anti–Social Behaviour and Legal Officer would visit him to review his concerns and develop an action plan. It apologised that the issues were still unresolved and that it had not involved the ASB specialist sooner, and for any “additional distress or upset” that had caused. It said the visit would also discuss using sound recording equipment to try to identify whether the tapping noise he (and others) had been hearing was a statutory noise nuisance and to try to find the source of it. It also agreed to review its ASB training for its employees in light of the complaint.
  9. The resident contacted this Service as he did not feel that the landlord had taken adequate action to ensure he was no longer affected by noise nuisance and stalking. The resident has since informed The Ombudsman that he has moved to a new housing scheme.

Assessment and findings

 The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of stalking and noise nuisance.

  1. When the resident made his reports of ASB to the landlord in June 2021, the landlord acted appropriately by recording them as ASB incidents and taking steps to see if further action needed to be taken. The landlord spoke to Neighbour B to see if they were the source of the music and advised the resident to report any further incidents.
  2. The landlord also acted appropriately when it took no further action regarding the stalking report. Stalking is a criminal offence and where there are allegations of criminal activity, it is usually considered best practice for the police to lead any investigation, although the landlord would be expected to assist the police in their investigation where necessary. The police have different powers to the landlord and can take more appropriate action in response to criminal activity such as stalking. It would not have been appropriate for the landlord to take any action against Neighbour A for stalking until the police investigation had concluded as any action taken by the landlord could be seen as interfering with the police’s investigation. After the police investigation concluded, the landlord decided not to take any further action against Neighbour A due to a lack of evidence to show that he was stalking the resident.
  3. It is acknowledged that the resident has said Neighbour A was stalking him. However, it would be unreasonable for the landlord to take formal action against its tenants for ASB based on allegations alone without supporting evidence. In the absence of supporting evidence of stalking, it was therefore reasonable for the landlord not to take further action against Neighbour A.
  4. When the resident made a further ASB report about Neighbour A in September 2021,although the police had taken no further action when the incident had been reported , they had advised the resident to call them if it happened again if he felt vulnerable. As it was evident that the issue had not been resolved and was causing the resident distress, and as the landlord was also aware of the resident’s vulnerability it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have sought the advice of its ASB specialist and considered whether it would be helpful to talk to Neighbour A, and to view the CCTV footage that the resident had said would have captured the incident. As the landlord failed to do so there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of stalking and noise nuisance.
  5. When the resident reported that he believed that somebody (potentially Neighbour B) was making tapping noises when the resident was talking to people outside his flat, the landlord acted appropriately by talking to other people who had heard the noise. However having spoken to other residents it became apparent that they did not know the source of the noise. Without knowing where the noise was coming from, the landlord was limited in the actions it could take to resolve it. The landlord could not take any action against an individual resident for noise nuisance without evidence to confirm that they were responsible for the noise. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to keep records of the noise and to keep reporting it in the hope that these further reports would help identify the source of the noise.
  6. Once this Service had asked the landlord to contact the resident about his complaint in October 2021, the landlord took appropriate steps to understand and investigate the resident’s ASB concerns by speaking to his key worker and legal advocate, visiting the resident and trying to locate the source of the noise nuisance and by offering him the option of moving to another scheme. However, it still did not make arrangements to escalate his concerns to its ASB specialist until its stage two complaint response in January 2022, (despite having said it may consider that option in its stage one complaint response in November 2021). There is also no record of it speaking to Neighbour A about the allegations of ASB made against them. This delay in referring the case to its ASB specialist was further service failure by the landlord.
  7. To summarise, although the landlord did eventually agree in January 2022 to take appropriate steps to arrange for its ASB specialist to visit the resident and agree an action plan, it should have done this sooner and this delay caused additional distress to the resident.  The landlord acted appropriately by apologising for this delay and the distress it caused in its stage two complaint response.  However, this Service considers it appropriate that the landlord awards compensation for this too. The landlord should award the resident compensation of £175 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website). The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that we may make awards of  £50-250 for cases of service failure where the impact experienced by the complainant could include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord has a three stage complaints process. The landlord has provided this Service with both its Service Standards complaint booklet and its customer feedback policy and both give conflicting information on the stages and timeframes of its complaints process. The landlord’s website does not currently provide full details of its current complaint’s process either. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code is a guidance document which sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code recommends that landlords operate a two stage complaints process. This is also mentioned in the Ombudsman’s self-assessment , which member landlords are expected to complete annually to show they are complying with the Code. It is not clear if the landlord has done so.
  2. When the resident raised a complaint on 15 June 2021, it was recorded as an informal complaint. This should have been investigated by the landlord and a response should have been issued at the time. According to its customer feedback policy the landlord should have aimed to resolve it within two working days and progressed the complaint to its formal stage one if it could not resolve it within this timeframe. According to its complaints booklet the landlord should have provided an acknowledgment within two working days, regularly communicated with the resident and resolved the complaint within 10 working days. Though it is not clear which of the two processes the landlord was following at the time, the landlord’s records show that the complaint was allocated on 18 June 2021 but then there is no record of any response being provided at all. This adds support to the resident’s claim that his complaint was acknowledged but then never responded to. The landlord’s records show that once the complaint was allocated to a member of staff to investigate, several automated reminders were issued to the complaint handler. However there was also an automated out of office response from the complaint handler on 18 June 2021 saying that they would be out of the office until 21 June 2021. This suggests that the complaint handler may have not been in the office when the complaint was allocated and did not respond for that reason. However, it would have been appropriate for them to either of addressed the complaint once they returned or for the landlord to have allocated it to another complaint handler in the meantime. No response was provided to the resident and no communication was made with the resident about the delay and the complaint was not progressed to stage one until 4 November 2021, (after contact from this Service in October 2021) which is an unreasonable timeframe by any standards.
  3. In its stage one response on 17 November 2021 it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged and apologised for its failure to provide a complaint response sooner and explained the reason for the delay. The stage one complaint response, and its subsequent stage two complaint response failed to do so. Though it was appropriate that the landlord’s stage one complaint response referred to the recent actions it had taken in response to the resident’s ASB reports it would also have been appropriate for it to have addressed how it responded to the ASB reports in June 2021 too, as that was the resident’s original complaint. The landlord failed to do so, and as the resident raised it as a point in his escalation request, the landlord should have addressed it in its stage two complaint response. Though its stage two complaint response apologised for not escalating the resident’s ASB concerns sooner, it did not adequately clarify whether it was referring to June 2021 as being the time that it should have escalated the complaint or at some point after that. This lack of clarity would have added to the resident’s distress at the way in which his complaint was being handled.
  4. The rest of the landlord’s stage two complaint response was appropriate as it showed that the landlord had taken on board the resident’s views and had acted appropriately by arranging for its ASB officer to visit the resident to agree an action plan. The responses were provided in a timely fashion in line with this Service’s guidance for response times. It also acted appropriately by agreeing to review its ASB training for employees in light of this complaint. However, in recognition of aforementioned service failures in its complaint handling, and the effect they had on the resident, this Service considers it appropriate that the landlord awards the resident £270 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (as referenced above), which suggests amounts of £250-700 for cases where the landlord has failed over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy or significant failures to follow complaint procedure, escalate the matter or signpost the complainant.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of stalking and noise nuisance.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this letter the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £445 compensation, comprised of £270 for any distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its complaint handling and £175 for its service failure in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of stalking and noise nuisance.
  2. Within four weeks of the date of this decision the landlord is ordered to show evidence that it has completed this Service’s self-assessment, which can be found at the following link: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Code-Self-Assessment-form-published-March-2022-.pdf

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to ensure that its website provides details of the full complaint process including response timeframes so that the information is easily accessible to residents.
  2. The landlord is recommended to consider replacing its three-stage complaint process with a two-stage complaint process, as recommended by this Service in its complaint handling code.