Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Women’s Pioneer Housing Limited (202107641)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107641

Women’s Pioneer Housing Limited

19 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 handling of the resident’s reports about anti-social behaviour from a neighbouring property.

Background

  1. The resident, who is an assured tenant of the landlord, lives in a first floor flat in a converted residential building. On 4 January 2021, the resident reported noise nuisance from her neighbour’s partner in the flat above. An ASB investigation was opened by the landlord and subsequently closed on 6 June 2021 following a period without any further reports or disturbances. On 11 June 2021, the resident made another report involving similar ASB issues as before. A new investigation was opened by the landlord, however, after lack of cooperation from the neighbour, the investigation progressed no further.
  2. The resident complained on 9 August 2021 as she had no further contact from the landlord regarding the investigation after 16 July 2021. The situation was unresolved and the ASB issues continued. The landlord’s final response was issued on 17 November 2021. It confirmed that its ASB investigation had not met the required standard, but that its investigation had since continued with appropriate procedures followed.
  3. As well as identifying several service failures, and presenting several examples of how it would learn and prevent them in the future, the landlord also offered £250 compensation (an increase from the previous offer of £150 in its stage one response). Additionally, the landlord said that it would raise the resident’s transfer priority in order to find a new property for her as soon as possible. The resident was not satisfied with the compensation offered, and wanted reimbursement for the time she said that she had spent away from the property due to her fears for her safety regarding the behaviour of the neighbour’s boyfriend.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

  1. Section 6.5 of the landlord’s ASB Policy states that ‘During the investigation [the landlord] will take an impartial approach, be fact driven and manage expectations’.
  2. Section 6.7 of the landlord’s ASB policy states that ‘During the initial meeting of the investigation an action plan will be completed and agreed with the resident who was complained of ASB. [The landlord] will ensure that [it manages] expectations from the outset. [The landlord] will support the [resident] to gather further evidence for example through diary sheets or recorders and can put in place additional appropriate additional security measures if needed’.
  3. Section 10.2 of the landlord’s ASB Policy states that ‘If an allegation of ASB is founded, [the landlord] can take a range of action varying in severity’.
  4. Section 11.1 of the landlord’s ASB Policy states that ‘If there has been no repeat of ASB after a monitoring period of one month following action or the complaint was unfounded or inconclusive, then the case will be closed. [The landlord] will call the [resident] to inform it [its] decision to close the case’.
  5. Section 5.11 of the landlord’s ASB Procedure states that ‘In cases of noise nuisance it is reasonable to contact neighbours in the property and ask them for their experiences’.
  6. Section 5.12 of the landlord’s ASB Procedure states that the resident should be updated in writing to let them know this interview has taken place.

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident stated in her complaint that the ASB she experienced had impacted her physical and mental health. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report about noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour

  1. The resident made her first report of ASB on 4 January 2021. From the evidence provided, it is clear that the investigation following this first report was completed by the landlord to a suitable standard. The landlord closed the case on 6 June 2021 after one month of no further reports of ASB. This was in line with section 11.1 of the landlord’s ASB Policy which states that ‘If there has been no repeat of ASB after a monitoring period of one month following action, or the complaint was unfounded or inconclusive, then the case will be closed. [The landlord] will call the [resident] to inform [its] decision to close the case’. The resident was notified of the closure of the case, to which there was no disagreement, and no mention of it in her formal complaint.
  2. On 11 June 2021, the resident made a new report of ASB regarding the flat above. The reported behaviour included loud music and arguing between the neighbour and their partner. Due to the continuous ASB from the neighbour over the preceding months, the resident stated that she wanted an immediate solution. The landlord advised her that it would open a new ASB investigation, but for an immediate solution she would need to consider contacting the police.
  3. This was appropriate as it confirmed its intent to follow procedure and carry out a full investigation in line with its policies. The resident expressed fear of contacting police due to the aggressiveness of the neighbour’s partner, but the landlord informed the resident that she could keep her report anonymous. The landlord’s attempt to signpost with relevant information was appropriate, as in a situation that proved to be extremely stressful for the resident, being made aware of all options available may have helped to alleviate some stress.
  4. It is also relevant to note the limitations of the landlord in addressing reports of ASB. A landlord has the power to commence possession action against a perpetrator of ASB, though it is expected to do so only in the most serious of cases and only when other options have been exhausted. A decision to take possession of a property, and thus evict a resident, can only be taken by the courts.
  5. Section 6.7 of the landlord’s ASB policy states that ‘During the initial meeting of the investigation, an action plan will be completed and agreed with the resident who has complained of ASB. [The landlord] will ensure that [it manages] expectations from the outset. [The landlord] will support the [resident] to gather further evidence for example through diary sheets or recorders and can put in place additional appropriate additional security measures if needed’. However, there is no evidence of the landlord having agreed an action plan to the resident at the outset of the new ASB case, as required by this section of the policy.
  6. Section 6.5 of the landlord’s ASB Policy states that ‘During the investigation [the landlord] will take an impartial approach, be fact driven and manage expectations’. Although the landlord had confirmed that it would be conducting another ASB investigation, it did not provide clarity on exactly how it would be conducting the investigation, and the next steps that it intended to take. This could have been done by implementing a clear and detailed action plan for the resident. The landlord’s ASB procedure provides it with the opportunity to conduct such an impartial, fact driven investigation. Its failure to evidence that it acted in accordance with its process (by agreeing an action plan with the resident) therefore raises concerns about its investigation and its attempts to manage the resident’s expectations.
  7. It is important for a landlord to manage the resident’s expectations as it gives the resident an understanding of the timeframe expected to conduct the investigation and the steps it might take to identify and then address any potential ASB. Providing this clarity offers reassurance to an affected tenant and confirms to them that their reports have been taken seriously. Additionally, in this context, the sufficient management of expectations perhaps could have conveyed a sense of empathy which would have strengthened the landlord/tenant relationship.
  8. Another aspect of managing the resident’s expectations is keeping them updated as the investigation progressed. The landlord recognised in its stage one response (20 August 2021) that it had failed to do this. There is no evidence that suggests that the landlord informed the resident of conversations with the neighbour to a sufficient standard. The landlord confirmed in its stage one response that the agent who oversaw the resident’s ASB reports had left employment by the landlord during the investigation, and therefore ‘there was no contact made with [the resident] to update [the resident] as to the process of the investigation’.
  9. It should also be noted that once the agent was no longer employed by the landlord, the evidence of ASB that had been sent to her phone by the resident was wiped and had not been properly saved on the landlord’s system. Resultingly, the resident was asked to re-send the evidence to the landlord. This failure caused unnecessary involvement by the resident. It is important for the landlord to avoid causing the resident unnecessary involvement as it could lead to further stress and anxiety to be experienced by the resident. Additionally, the confirmation that her evidence had not been saved properly and was lost, could have conveyed a sense that the landlord was not investigating her reports seriously enough.
  10. The landlord’s final response (17 November 2021) noted that all of its staff would receive further training to ensure that they know how to save information or evidence to its main system. It also added that all staff would be reminded that its procedures require staff to ‘record all contact with residents on casework management systems’. This acknowledgement by the landlord is in line with this Service’s dispute resolution principles, in which landlords are encouraged to learn from outcomes. The landlord’s assurance that it would commit to further training for its staff shows that not only did it learn from the outcome of the complaint, but that it was putting the relevant steps in place to ensure that the same mistake would not happen again.
  11. During the investigation, the landlord had attempted to set up an interview with the neighbour regarding the reports of ASB on two occasions in July 2021. However, due to a lack of cooperation from the neighbour, it was unable to do so. This information should have been relayed to the resident. Additionally, the landlord should have also come to a decision based on the evidence that it had available to it. This was recognised by the landlord in its stage one response as it stated that ‘if it is not possible to carry out an interview with the alleged perpetrator of the ASB, a decision should be taken on appropriate action based on other evidence gathered. This did not take place’.
  12. Had the landlord decided on the outcome of the investigation at this point, it would have prevented the time and inconvenience of the resident having to pursue a complaint in regard to the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports. Its failure to do so was a failure to act in accordance with its ASB procedure.
  13. Following these failed attempts at conducting an interview, the landlord did not contact the resident again until after she had submitted her formal complaint (9 August 2021). Maintaining communication with the resident during an investigation is essential in ensuring that the resident felt that her reports and concerns were being taken seriously. Additionally, it gives the resident the opportunity to add to her reports and present any further evidence that may have been gathered in the meantime.
  14. In its final response (17 November 2021) the landlord acknowledged that it should have given more detail over steps being taken following the neighbour’s failure to attend the interview. It explained that the resident should have been notified of the failure and of what steps would be taken next. It also acknowledged that even though some information was confidential, next steps and advice should have been given regularly throughout the investigation. In its final response, it confirmed that it had arranged another interview in which the neighbour did not attend, and therefore was in the process of sending a warning letter. It also confirmed that legal action was being considered, as well as the option of taking a multi-disciplinary approach. Although there had been issues regarding keeping the resident informed, the landlord had now done this during the panel hearing, which ensured that the investigation was still underway, despite the lack of communication previously. Additionally, informing the resident of this helped to manage expectations.
  15. During the panel hearing, the resident made clear that she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response to the fact that she had not been staying at the property as she believed it was unsafe. The resident wanted an offer of compensation that reflected this. Although it is understandable that the resident stayed with her friend, given her concerns, it must be noted that it was the resident’s own decision to do so and there was no obligation on the landlord to reimburse any rent paid for this period. Although the landlord would not be required to reimburse for this period, it did acknowledge that its stage one response gave a lack of consideration to this aspect of the resident’s complaint, and should have been reflected.
  16. However, the landlord did confirm, in its final response, that it had made a recommendation to give the resident management transfer priority for alternative accommodation. This was later confirmed to have been accepted in a letter to the resident on 7 January 2022. This priority was the highest priority available and ensured that the resident would be given first offer on available properties.
  17. Additionally, the landlord offered the resident £250 in recognition of the ‘inconvenience and distress caused by the failings in the handling of the ASB investigation’. This offer was an increase from the £150 originally offered in its stage one response. The landlord exercised reasonable discretion in increasing its compensation offer to a sum that was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance. The guidance suggests that offers of £250 would be suitable for instances in which the landlord failed ‘to meet service standards for actions and responses’, but also where the failure ‘may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the [resident]’.
  18. Following the final response, the landlord also notified the tenants of the building about the ASB issues and encouraged them to come forward with any evidence that would help with the investigation. Along with this, the landlord approached each tenant of the building in order do learn their opinions regarding whether or not they would like CCTV to be implemented into the building. This showed a willingness by the landlord to make improvements to the building in order to improve the safety of its residents. Additionally, conducting a survey to find out the opinions of its tenants would help to improve the landlord/tenant relationship, as it showed that the landlord cared for their opinions, and that it genuinely wanted their input in making a decision that would have affected the entire building.
  19. It is reasonable to suggest that the service failures did not have a significant impact on the overall outcome of the complaint as the landlord confirmed in a follow-up letter (21 January 2022), that there had been no further ASB reports, and that reports from other tenants within the building suggested that it had been quiet. Additionally, the opportunity for the resident to be moved into another property would be a positive outcome for her.
  20. The landlord showed that although there had been several service failures during its handling of the ASB investigation, it had identified them and made genuine attempts to not only resolve them, but to learn from their outcomes in order to improve service standards regarding ASB investigations in the future. In addition to the learning from the complaint, and implementing improvements to its processes, the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident in regard to the service failures she had faced. The revised compensation offer was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, and when considered with the resident’s placement onto the management transfer priority list, this Service would agree that the landlord had met expectations in attempting to put things right.

Determination

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