Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited (202011796)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011796

Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited

31 October 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 response to the resident’s complaints about:
1. anti-social behaviour (ASB)
2. repairs to the bedroom window
3. repairs to the aerial.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident’s tenancy commenced on 23 April 2012. The resident was a tenant of the landlord until 20 May 2022.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement gives the resident security of tenure as long as the property is his principal home. It obliges the resident to provide access to the landlord to inspect the property or to carry out repairs. It allows the landlord to bring the tenancy to an end by obtaining a court order for possession.
The landlord’s service standard: maintenance service available online advises that it aims to provide an efficient repairs and maintenance service. It has three repair categories: emergency repairs which should be resolved within 24 hours; urgent repairs to be resolved within six working days and routine repairs within 30 working days.
The landlord’s service standard: anti-social behaviour (ASB) available online states the approach it will take when investigating reports of ASB. The landlord will respond to reports of ASB it receives, keep residents updated every 10 working days, visit the victim and perpetuator unless it is not appropriate to do so. It will identify cases that are suitable for early resolution, use appropriate informal sanctions and complete a risk assessment to establish the level of risk and vulnerability of the victim.
The landlord’s complaint procedure sets out to ensure that residents are treated fairly and that residents are helped to make a complaint. The complaints procedure says that it will not treat as a complaint a request for a service that it receives for the first time.
The complaint procedure also states that it will not investigate complaints about the same issue from the same resident that has been investigated and closed. The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process with complaints resolved within 20 working days at both stages of the complaint’s procedure.
The complaint procedure allows the landlord to extend the complaint investigation by a further 10 working days with the agreement of the resident. In addition, the resident can request a review of the complaint response within 20 working days.

Scope of complaint

The resident complained to the landlord regarding matters contained in the Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) served by the landlord. Paragraph 42 (f) of the Ombudsman’s scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint where the resident has had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings. This investigation will not consider the ASB reports defined in the NOSP as these relate to the possession proceedings commenced by the landlord and were considered by the court. Therefore, those matters are considered as outside the Ombudsman’s remit but it may be referred to for context.

Summary of events

On 25 June 2020, the landlord served the resident with a NOSP on ground 12 and ground 14 of the Housing Act 1985. The notice stated that the resident had caused nuisance, harassment and ASB regarding burglary and theft at a neighbour’s property. The NOSP also stated that the property had been used for prostitution.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 6 August 2020. The resident complained amongst other things that:
1. The landlord had not responded to a report of a serious sexual assault taking place on its premises.
2. The landlord had chosen to pursue legal action against him rather than investigate the reports he had made regarding the sexual assault.
The landlord contacted the resident on 14 August 2020 regarding his complaint. It advised that it has started an investigation into the complaint and needed further information. It requested either to speak with him on the following Monday 17 August 2020 or it could send its additional questions by email.
The landlord emailed the resident on the 17 August 2020 referencing its correspondence of the previous week and outlined the information it required in order to respond to his complaint. It requested that the resident respond by 24 August 2020.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 September 2020 advising it had not received the information requested in its email of 17 August 2020. It stated that it was going to extend the complaint timescales until 10 September 2020 to allow the resident more time to provide the correspondence relating to the report of the serious sexual offence regarding the exploitation of a vulnerable woman which it had not investigated.
The landlord informed the resident in the same letter that if received the requested information, it would provide its complaint response by 18 September 2020 and that if it did not receive a response from the resident, the complaint would be closed.
The landlord met within the resident on 11 September 2020 in its offices regarding the ASB complaint he had made regarding inappropriate behaviour by another resident. The resident recounted the allegations of sexual exploitation that he had reported to the landlord and his account included his concerns about his relationship with the landlord including his support needs.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 15 September 2020. It informed the resident that it had not received the requested information so it had to make assumptions to respond to the complaint. The key findings were:
1. It reviewed the solicitors letter dated 6 August 2020 and the resident’s email dated 6 August 2020. It advised that the intention of its correspondence was to inform the resident of the consequences to him, if it received further allegations, therefore, he should obtain independent legal advice.
2. It agreed that the allegations of a report of a serious sexual offence taking place on the premises had not been investigated in a timely manner. It had arranged for an investigation to take place and it would contact the resident regarding the investigation.
3. The conduct of the ASB officer and the allegation of fabricated charges against the resident related to the NOSP that it had served. It advised that it was of the view that a breach of tenancy had occurred, however it was a decision for a court whether possession was granted.
4. It informed the resident that if he was unhappy with the response to the complaint to request a review within 20 working days.
On 16 September 2020, the landlord conducted a disability check under the Equality Act 2020. It decided to refer the resident to its internal support service and to continue legal action during the referral process.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 December 2020 acknowledging his emails and advising that it would respond on 8 January 2021. It explained that the delay in response was due to the Christmas period and members of its staff were on leave.
On 8 January 2021, the landlord responded to the various issues raised by the resident. The issues related to this complaint are:
1. It confirmed that it did not receive a request from the resident to escalate the complaint about the conduct of its staff and it would not now accept a complaint about the same matter.
2. It confirmed that each complaint it had received regarding alleged harassment by its staff, contractors regarding access to his home and the ASB officer had been investigated. It considered those matters closed and would not accept any further complaints about these issues.
3. It stated that it could not disclose the management action that it had taken regarding other residents due to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
The resident contacted this Service on 13 January 2021 to advise that he had been reporting noise related ASB for the past four years from the flat below and their visitors. He described the noise as banging doors, loud music, drug taking in the communal stairwell. He also stated that he was unhappy that the landlord had served him a NOSP and that the residents living below had stabbed and robbed him which had been reported to the police.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 13 January 2021 requesting that it respond to the resident’s complaint about the noise related ASB and the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.
In response, the landlord informed this Service on 19 January 2021 that it had not received a complaint about noise related ASB from the resident, that the complaint about ASB had been investigated and that it could not disclose information regarding other neighbours due to data protections regulations. It clarified that the accusation of theft was referred to in the NOSP that it had served on the resident. It provided the NOSP and its stage one complaint response. The landlord also advised that the resident had not escalated the complaint to the next stage of its complaint procedure and that the complaint was closed. Furthermore, due to the volume of contact from the resident, a member of its staff had been appointed as the resident’s point of contact.
This Service informed the landlord on 20 January 2021 that from our review of the information we had received, it did not appear that the landlord had addressed the issues raised by the resident.
On 1 April 2021, the resident called this Service to say that the landlord had not repaired his bedroom window and that his TV aerial had not been repaired for the past 10 years.
On the same day, this Service wrote to the landlord requesting that it investigate the resident’s complaint outlined in our communication dated 13 January 2021 and the repairs outstanding to the bedroom window and the TV aerial.
The landlord informed this Service on 8 April 2021 that:
1. The bedroom window and aerial repair was reported on 10 March 2021.
2. It had been unable to contact the resident on 11 March 2021 to arrange the repair to the bedroom window; However, it had contacted the resident on 18 March 2021 and arranged an appointment for 25 March 2021. The resident had refused the appointment for the 25 March 2021 as he wanted an earlier appointment.
3. It had dealt with a previous repair request for the lounge window on 2 September 2019 and its aerial contractor had attended on 11 October 2019.
4. Its contractor had made five attempts to contact the resident by phone to arrange a convenient appointment for the aerial repair to be carried out. As it had been unable to speak to the resident, it had sent the resident a letter informing him that an appointment had been arranged for 20 April 2021 to carry out the repair. It stated that it had not received a previous report that the aerial required repair.
5. It had not registered a complaint for the window or aerial repair as they fell within its target repair response time.
On 30 April 2021, the resident contacted this Service, he advised that the repair to the bedroom window and to the aerial had been reported multiple times over the past ten years. In addition, the landlord had not addressed his complaint regarding noise related ASB from the property below, neither had it responded to his request for the complaint investigated in November 2020 to be escalated.
Furthermore, the resident advised that the matter regarding the NOSP had been resolved as it had been suspended in court for one year. He had completed the landlord’s complaint form and made a complaint that day to the landlord stating:
1. The repair to the bedroom window was outstanding
2. An appointment had been arranged for an operative to repair the aerial on 20 April 2022 and no one had attended.
3. That the landlord had not addressed his concerns that the resident in the flat below was bringing drugs and prostitutes into the property. There was drug taking and criminal damage taking place and that he had experienced excess noise.
4. On receiving the landlord’s response to the complaint on 15 September 2020, he had requested an escalation of the complaint by email but it had not been carried out.
The resident requested as an outcome to the complaint that another appointment be arranged for the repairs to the bedroom window to be carried out as he was unavailable on the 25 March 2021. The landlord completes the repair to the aerial and takes action regarding the ASB. Furthermore, when he had completed the complaint form, he had not received a reference number, just a message that someone would be in contact within the next three days.
Following the conversation with the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord on 4 May 2021 requesting that it respond to the resident’s complaint within the next ten days regarding the ASB from the neighbour below and the outstanding repairs.
The landlord contacted this Service on 7 May 2021 providing an interim injunction issued on 16 April 2021 to prevent the resident contacting the landlord apart from its identified point of contact. It confirmed that the resident had refused access for the bedroom window to be examined and that it had awarded £10 to the resident for the missed appointment to repair the aerial. Furthermore, it had no evidence regarding the claim of nuisance, criminal damage or noise related ASB made by the resident. It confirmed that it did not have a record of the resident requesting a stage two investigation of its complaint response and that if the resident provided evidence that he had done so, it would investigate it again.
The landlord emailed the resident on 7 May 2021 to respond to various concerns. The landlord reiterated its position regarding the window and aerial repair, that it received the report on 10 March 2021. In addition, the landlord advised that:
1. It did not have any evidence of drugs being present in any of the properties.
2. It shared the outcome of the ASB investigation that it had conducted and advised that it was not planning to take any further action in relation to this.
3. It had checked the CCTV system and did not evidence anyone causing damage to the resident’s letterbox
4. It requested that the resident provide further information regarding the noise related ASB complaint and that on receipt it would register a ASB complaint.
5. It advised that the resident could complete diary sheets or download the Noise App to record the incidents of noise.
6. It requested that the resident clarify whether he was complaining about one neighbour or a several neighbours that was causing the noise related ASB.
On 22 June 2021, this Service and the landlord communicated regarding the resident’s complaint. The landlord confirmed that it was not accepting a new complaint from the resident as he had exhausted the complaints procedure and the resident had failed to provide evidence that he had requested a stage two investigation. In addition, the resident had failed to engage with them regarding the allegations made regarding ASB.
The Regulator of Social Housing wrote to the landlord on 19 July 2021 regarding the referral made by the resident regarding repairs, legal action, fly tipping, ASB and harassment. It found no breach of its standards, noted that the resident had escalated his complaint to this Service and advised that it would not be taking any further action.
On 29 July 2021, the landlord set out its position regarding the complaint to this Service. The landlord advised that:
1. It had investigated the issues regarding the ASB under its complaints procedure.
2. The resident had not provided any new issues for investigation, therefore it was not minded to review the resident’s complaint.
3. It reiterated that it had treated the resident’s repair request on 10 March 2021 as a service request and that it had completed repairs to the window in October 2019.
4. It had received its first report regarding the TV aerial on 10 March 2021. It had paid the resident £10 for a missed appointment, its contractor had been unable to arrange a mutually convenient appointment with the resident so the repair order had been closed.
5. It confirmed that it had not received a request from the resident to escalate the complaint and it had not received a new complaint from the resident.
6. Following contact from the Regulator of Social Housing, a visit had been arranged to the resident’s address on 26 July 2021 following his report of damp and mould in the property. The resident had refused access to its officers and it had been unable to gain access.
7. It had two injunctions for the resident in force; one issued in July 2019 for the resident to keep his flat clear of rubbish and to allow access to the landlord’s staff to carry out repairs which expired on 15 July 2022. The second was issued on 14 May 2021 to prevent the resident making contact with the landlord’s staff apart from the nominated point of contact which expired on 12 May 2023.
On the same day 29 July 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident. The landlord informed the resident that:
1. It had investigated his complaints and these were closed.
2. It would not investigate a new complaint unless it received new information.
3. It stated that it had treated his repair reports regarding the window and the aerial as service requests.
4. Its officers had visited his property on 26 July 2021, access was refused and it considered that his behaviour had been abusive to his officers.
5. It provided the details of his nominated point of contact and signposted the resident to this Service if he remained dissatisfied with the response to his complaint.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint to this Service.
On 13 October 2022, the landlord confirmed to this Service that they had not received the complaint from the resident made on 25 March 2021 regarding the bedroom window repair, the noise related ASB from the neighbour below, drugs use and criminal activity.

Assessment and findings

The Complaint Handling Code ensures that a landlord’s complaint handling process is clear, simple and accessible and ensures that complaints are resolved promptly, politely and fairly. It advised that landlords should recognise the difference between a service request and a formal complaint made to the landlord and take steps to resolve the issue as quickly as possible for the resident.

resident’s complaints about anti-social behaviour (ASB)

The resident complained to the landlord in August 2020 regarding ASB that was ongoing within the building. As part of its complaint investigation, the landlord appropriately allowed the resident to communicate by either phone or email to provide additional information and held a meeting with the resident to ensure that it carried out a thorough and accurate investigation.
The landlord in its complaint review found that it had not addressed one of the complaint points regarding the sexual abuse and exploitation of a vulnerable woman. It appropriately agreed to investigate the complaint point and concluded that there was no nuisance caused to the resident or other people living in the building so it was not taking further action.
The landlord’s complaint procedure says that a resident should request a review of a complaint within 20 working days of receiving the initial complaint response. There is a dispute about whether the resident escalated the complaint to the next stage of the complaints procedure. The resident has said that it did this by emailing the landlord. The landlord has said that it did not receive a complaint request to escalate to the final stage of the complaint procedure from the resident. The landlord reasonably agreed to review the resident’s complaint if the resident could provide confirmation of his request to escalate the complaint. Though requested the resident did not provide confirmation of his request for the complaint to be escalated, therefore there is insufficient evidence that the resident had requested for his complaint to be escalated to the final stage of the complaint procedure.
Looking at the noise related ASB complaints made by the resident to the landlord. The resident advised that he had experienced excessive noise from the neighbour below, that there was drugs and criminal behaviour occurring in the building. This Service requested on 13 January 2021, 20 January 2021, 1 April 2021 and 4 May 2021 that the landlord investigate the resident’s report of noise related anti – social behaviour and criminal damage. under its complaint procedure. The landlord did not deal with the complaint as requested stating that it had not received a complaint from the resident. Whilst that may be the case, as this Service had informed the landlord that the resident wished to make a complaint it should have contacted the resident to ascertain the issues of dissatisfaction that the resident wished to complain about, consider the issues and provided the resident with its complaint response.
From the information provided to this Service, the landlord requested in accordance with its ASB procedures that the resident provide further information about the noise related ASB for an investigation to commence. There is no evidence that the resident did so.

repair to the bedroom window

The resident has said that he made a complaint to the landlord in March 2021 regarding repairs to the bedroom that had been outstanding for over 10 years. The resident has not provided any evidence that he has been contacting the landlord for that period of time regarding the window repair. The landlord has said that the request to repair the bedroom window in March 2021 was dealt with as a service request as this was the first report that it had received that the window required repair. The response by the landlord was in accordance with its complaint procedure which says that it will treat a first request for service as a service request and the complaint handling code which expects landlords to distinguish between a service request and a complaint.
The landlord arranged for the repair to the bedroom window and closed the repair record when the resident did not agree to the appointment date for the repair. The resident states that he made a complaint to the landlord in April 2021 using its contact us form regarding the missed appointment for the window. The landlord has advised that it did not receive a complaint about the missed appointment and this explains the resident’s account that he did not receive an acknowledgement for the complaint that he made.

repair to the aerial

The landlord advised that on receiving the repair report for the aerial in March 2021, it attempted to agree a mutually convenient appointment time to repair the TV aerial and provided details of the dates that it attempted to contact the resident. It accepted that it had arranged an appointment for the repair to be carried out and when its operative did not attend, it paid the resident £10 for a missed appointment.
The landlord assessed that the repair report for the aerial did not meet the threshold for a complaint as it was the first time that the resident had made it aware that a repair was required. Therefore, in accordance with its repair policy it dealt with the report as a service request.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about anti-social behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the repair to the bedroom window.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the repair to the aerial.

Reasons

This Service informed the landlord that the resident wished to make a complaint. The landlord should have acted in accordance with the Complaint Handling Code to contact the resident to establish the issues of complaint and issue its complaint response.
The landlord arranged for the resident’s bedroom window to be repaired in accordance with its service standards.
The landlord arranged for the repair to the aerial in accordance with its repair standards.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £50 for its failure to register the complaint regarding noise related nuisance when requested to do so by this Service.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.