Lodge Lane East Co-operative Housing Limited (202017618)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017618

Lodge Lane East Co-operative Housing Limited

7 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB by his neighbour.
The report will also address the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, and the resident’s flat is one of four flats within a building owned and managed by the landlord.

Policies, procedures, and agreements

Complaints policy:

This sets out how the landlord’s formal complaints process will be carried out and the timeframes:
1. Stage 1 – the process involves a confidential interview with the complainant to obtain details of the complaint, followed by carrying out any further necessary enquiries, before writing to the complainant to confirm the findings and to detail any action to be taken. The landlord aims to complete this process within 10 working days of the receipt of the complaint.
2. Stage 2 – the process involves a review of the Stage 1 investigation by a panel of at least two members of the landlord’s Management Committee. An appeal hearing will normally be arranged to allow the complainant to present their appeal. The complainant will be notified of the outcome of the appeal in writing within 15 working days of the receipt of the request.

ASB Policy:

The landlord’s policy sets out, in general terms, how it views ASB:
1. It will remind all tenants of the obligations placed upon them by their conditions of tenancy in respect of ASB.
2. Reports of ASB will be treated confidentially and action will be taken only after discussion with complainants.
3. The landlord views eviction as a last resort and aims to tackle and resolve ASB cases by making full use of the non-legal and legal remedies available, and by working with other statutory and voluntary agencies.

Statement on Anti-Social Behaviour Procedures:

This sets out in more detail the landlord’s practical approach to ASB. It states that, depending on the seriousness of the reported ASB it will normally arrange a visit to discuss matters with the complainant within five working days of the initial report (and within two working days in cases of serious ASB or harassment).
During this visit, advice will be given on the landlord’s ASB policy, its powers to tackle ASB, how it can work with other agencies to address the ASB, and it will provide details of support that can be offered to complainants.
In investigating an ASB report, the landlord will try to agree an action plan with the complainant and it will record action taken in a case file and it may also ask complainants to maintain a record of incidents.
Actions that the landlord can take to address ASB include mediation, Acceptable Behaviour Agreements and legal action for injunctions or possession. In some circumstances, action may be taken in consultation with other agencies such as the Police or local authority.

Summary of events

The resident has said that in May 2019 a new neighbour (‘Tenant A’) moved into one of the flats in the building.
The landlord’s records show that on 21 October 2019 the resident reported that he had heard Tenant A and his partner were ‘screaming at each other’ again. There is no evidence of the landlord’s response to this report at this time.
On 4 November 2019 the resident started to complete the landlord’s formal complaint form, in which he referred to his ASB reports not being acted upon by the landlord. The resident stated that he was worried about Tenant A being violent towards his partner who lived in the flat with him. He was also unhappy about the landlord’s complaints process, which he described as being ‘secretive’ and he felt that he had lost trust in the landlord’s ability to address his concerns.
The landlord’s records show that on 4 November 2019 it wrote to Tenant A to arrange a time with him to discuss the ASB allegations that had been reported.
On 11 November 2019 the landlord’s records show that it visited Tenant A about the ASB allegations. The case notes show that Tenant A apologised and said it was a one-off argument that had got out of hand.
There is no further evidence to show what the landlord did following this visit to Tenant A.
On 27 November 2019 the resident revised his formal complaint form and submitted it to the landlord.
On 10 January 2020 the landlord held a Stage 1 complaint hearing:
1. It noted that the resident had reported ASB by the tenant who lived in the flat prior to Tenant A. These issues were resolved at the time and it was suggested by the resident that any future tenant should be selected carefully, and it should only be let to mature tenants. The resident said that the landlord failed to take on board his suggestion and instead re-let the flat to Tenant A who was a young male.
2. The resident alleged that Tenant A had been hacking his wi-fi and accessing his personal data.
3. The resident alleged that Tenant A had been behaving violently towards Tenant A’s partner who lived with him at his flat.
4. The resident was unhappy that his complaints had not been taken seriously by the landlord.
5. The landlord explained that it needed evidence of a tenancy breach in order to take further action against Tenant A. The resident said that he had reported the wi-fi hacking to the Police and he was liaising with them. The landlord asked to be kept informed of any developments with the Police.
6. The hearing also covered other issues raised by the resident about the use of the communal bins.
7. It was agreed at this hearing that the landlord would provide the resident with diary sheets to complete to record any further ASB incidents. The resident would also provide the landlord with the contact details for the Police Officer the resident was liaising with, or alternatively, the resident to give the Police Officer the landlord’s contact details and ask the Officer to contact the landlord with further information.
The landlord’s correspondence refers to a management committee meeting having been held on 21 January 2020 to discuss the complaint. The landlord has not provided any documentary evidence of this meeting or its findings.
On 22 January 2020 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that it had not received any contact or any information from the Police in connection with the ASB allegations reported by the resident.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 6 February 2020 shows that the officer investigating the ASB was waiting for the Police to contact them in relation to the complaint. It was noted that once the Police had made contact, the officer would review the complaint again.
The landlord’s records show that it had informed the resident on 6 February 2020 that if he had concerns about the safety of Tenant A’s partner, he should contact the Police in the first instance.
The landlord emailed the resident on 24 April 2020 and said that it had provided diary sheets and it was still waiting for these to be returned and it had not had any contact from the Police about the ASB reports. The landlord noted the resident’s dissatisfaction and explained how he could escalate his complaint to Stage 2 of its process.
The resident responded on 25 April 2020 and reiterated his concerns about Tenant As’s partner and queried whether or not two people were allowed to reside in a bedsit. He said that he and other neighbours had heard violence against the partner, which had been reported to the Police. He said he would try and provide the reference numbers for his contact with the Police.
The landlord issued its Stage 1 complaint response on 29 April 2020:
1. It apologised for the delay in its complaint response.
2. It confirmed that the complaint hearing established that the main complaint was about Tenant A’s conduct, with allegations of violent behaviour towards his partner as well as suspected cyber-crime (wi-fi hacking).
3. It was noted that the resident was asking the landlord to evict Tenant A.
4. The landlord explained it needed ‘detailed evidence’ to pursue any legal action to seek possession against Tenant A.
5. It was determined that the resident had said he had been liaising with the Police and It was advised that either the resident or the Police would provide the landlord with further information for the landlord to consider.
6. With regard the decision made by the management committee on 21 January 2020, it was agreed that the landlord was unable to take any further action against Tenant A without supporting evidence from the Police.
On 6 May 2020 the resident emailed the landlord asking about escalating his complaint to Stage 2. The landlord responded the same day and explained its complaints process and that it was still waiting for information from the Police in order to progress the ASB case. At a later stage, in October 2020, the resident then requested that his complaint be escalated to Stage 2 as he felt that the investigating officer had not fully understood his concerns and had dismissed the impact of the ASB on him in terms of his mental health.
There are no clear records of what took place after the resident had requested escalation of his complaint. The correspondence between the resident and landlord on 26 October 2020 shows that the complaints process was still ongoing at this time. The resident’s email to the landlord requested escalation of the complaint and he said that ‘Stage 1 has failed’ and that he had reported ASB incidents to the Police but ‘we will not give out any confidential dialogue around them and should never have been expected to do so’. The resident again reiterated that the landlord had not fully understood his concerns and had not shown empathy or taken into account the impact it has had on him.
On 5 November 2020 the landlord emailed the resident saying that it was trying to arrange a panel hearing via video call rather than in person (given the COVID restrictions in place at the time). The correspondence shows that this was agreed by the resident.
The Stage 2 panel hearing was carried out on 25 November 2020:
1. The panel summarised the background information provided by the resident about the basis of his complaint and his dissatisfaction with the landlord in respect of its handling of the ASB issues.
2. The resident was unhappy that he was expected to liaise with the Police and he felt that the landlord had failed to act appropriately in this regard.
3. The panel heard from another tenant of the building (who was supporting the resident) about his experiences with Tenant A and that he had overheard Tenant A making threats and there had been issues with loud music, missing post, and rubbish not being disposed of correctly.
4. The resident provided his views on the lack of empathy shown by the landlord. He also mentioned the impact on his mental health, and his ability to work, which led to financial losses. He also had to stay away from his flat for a period as he felt unsafe due to Tenant A’s behaviour.
5. The resident also asked why the tenancy was given to Tenant A and what background checks the landlord had done. The landlord explained its position that all housing applicants were visited before they were accepted on to the waiting list and there was nothing to suggest any concerns with Tenant A.
6. The hearing was closed and it was agreed that the notes would be circulated to all parties and a decision would be communicated to the management committee, and the Stage 2 decision would then be confirmed to the resident.
The Stage 2 complaint response was then issued on 10 December 2020. This letter confirmed that after the Stage 2 panel hearing the landlord maintained its decision not to uphold the complaint. However it also stated that ‘the offer of a transfer within the [landlord] still stands’.
On 3 February 2021 the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord suggesting a joint meeting between the landlord, the resident and the MP to discuss the complaint before making the formal referral to the Ombudsman. The landlord has not provided any evidence of its response to the MP’s suggestion.
On 1 April 2021 the resident referred his complaint to this Service via his MP.

Assessment and findings

The landlord in this case is a Co-Operative, and as such, the Ombudsman has taken into account its unique status as a community-led housing organisation, and its relatively small size and resources when considering its handling of the resident’s ASB-related concerns.
The Ombudsman has also taken into account the guidance document issued by the Confederation of Co-Operative Housing (‘CCH’) entitled ‘Housing Management Policy Guidance’ which sets out, in general terms, good practice on matters such as ASB and complaints. This includes having in place policies and procedures which set out how the landlord should respond to such issues.

Landlord’s handling of the ASB reports

The Ombudsman’s role includes an assessment of whether the landlord has followed its policies and procedures and acted appropriately. It is important to note that it is not the purpose of this report to investigate the actual ASB allegations themselves or to assess the credibility of the reports made by the resident. Our role is to consider the landlord’s response to the reports it received, and to the formal complaint, and consider whether its response was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. In doing so, the Ombudsman will not only consider the landlord’s response to the substantive issues, but also the actions it took within its complaints process.
The resident has commented on the difficulties he faced whilst living in the building given the ASB issues with Tenant A and this is duly acknowledged. However, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider how the landlord has addressed his concerns and to determine whether its approach was appropriate and proportionate to the issues being reported and the evidence available to it at the time. With regards to the resident’s comments about the adverse impact of the ASB issues on his health, it should be noted that the Ombudsman cannot make any formal determination on a possible causal link between the alleged ASB and the resident’s health. The resident would need to seek his own professional legal and medical advice on this matter.
In assessing the landlord’s response to the resident’s ASB reports, the difficulty in this case has been the distinct lack of detailed evidence from the landlord to demonstrate the actions it took. The landlord’s ASB procedure sets out that it will try and agree an action plan with the resident and it will keep a record of all the actions taken on a case. However, on this occasion the landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with sufficiently detailed evidence of its actions in response to the ASB reports and the contact from the resident.
The need for good record-keeping cannot be emphasised enough and it is important not only so that the landlord can provide an efficient and timely service to its tenants, but it also allows for an accurate audit trail of its decision-making after the event which can help in resolving complaints and learning from complaints to improve services. The landlord is therefore reminded of the need to ensure that it keeps appropriate records of its actions, especially with regards to the steps it takes when investigating ASB allegations.
Looking at the limited evidence that has been made available, the two main ASB issues were (a) an allegation that Tenant A was overheard being abusive/violent towards his partner who lived with him; and (b) that Tenant A had hacked into the resident’s wi-fi and possibly stole his personal data. Both these issues were potentially for the Police to look into (as they related to potential crimes) rather than the landlord per se. In that context, it can be seen that the landlord’s advice to the resident about the need to obtain evidence and to get the Police involved was, generally speaking, an appropriate and proportionate response given the nature of the resident’s reports.
However, having said that, there were also clear shortcomings and failings in the landlord’s handling of the reports and its communication with the resident.
The Ombudsman accepts that in order for the landlord to take any kind of enforcement action against Tenant A it needs to have sufficiently robust evidence of a tenancy breach. Proving criminality on the part of Tenant A (e.g. in respect of the data-hacking allegation) would no doubt have helped strengthen the landlord’s case. Therefore, the need to involve the Police was reasonable. However, this does not negate the need for the landlord to also carry out its own enquires and investigation into the resident’s concerns. It is not reasonable for the landlord to simply leave the matter in the hands of the Police without taking any steps itself to address the resident’s concerns. In this case, the landlord has not provided any evidence to show that it took the resident’s concerns seriously and nor has it demonstrated what steps it took to address the issue.
Similarly, with regards to the allegations of possible domestic abuse, the Police may well have a role to play, but as above, it is not reasonable for the landlord to simply await the outcome of any Police investigation into the allegations. The limited records show that the landlord did speak with Tenant A when the ASB report was first made by the resident in November 2019 and it was satisfied by his explanation. But there is no further evidence available of what follow-up actions the landlord took, especially given that the resident’s correspondence showed that he was still unhappy with the situation and had said that the issues with Tenant A remained ongoing.
The resident is clearly unhappy with the lack of formal action against Tenant A, but it must be borne in mind that the landlord is guided by the evidence available to it, and in this case, whilst the resident is adamant in his own belief that Tenant A should be evicted, the landlord did not receive any evidence from the Police, which would have enabled it to consider such action.
Where there are issues of potential criminal activity, it was appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident that he needed to report this to the Police. However, the landlord has not demonstrated that it acted proactively in this regard. Especially given that the resident appeared to be hesitant about involving the Police. There is no evidence that the landlord made any enquires of its own with the Police or sought to assist the resident in any way. Given the potential serious nature of the allegations being made by the resident (in terms of overhearing possible verbal/physical abuse) the landlord should have contacted the Police itself to establish if any further action was needed on its part and to facilitate some form of dialogue and a working relationship with the Police.
The landlord has reiterated its stance that it was not able to take any action without the necessary evidence. This may well be the case, but nevertheless, the Ombudsman expects that the landlord should be able to demonstrate that it took ownership of the issue and worked with the resident and the Police (as stipulated in its ASB procedure) rather than take a ‘wait and watch’ approach and rely upon the Police to take the first step.
Another issue of concern is that the resident has said that he made several reports about Tenant A’s behaviour but there is no evidence from the landlord to show what steps it took in response to these reports. For instance, there is nothing to show that the landlord periodically updated the resident on any developments with the ASB case. The landlord has not adequately demonstrated why there were long periods of inactivity and the resident was seemingly not kept updated. Similarly, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it formulated an action plan at the start of the case. Had it done so, it could have managed the resident’s expectations better and agreed the next steps to be taken and when updates would be given. This would have helped reassure the resident that his concerns were being properly considered.
Looking at all the above shortcomings in the landlord’s handling of this matter, and considering the CCH guidance referenced above, the Ombudsman accepts that there is a judgement call to be made about how prescriptive and detailed the landlord’s policies and procedures ought to be given its status as a community-led housing organisation. The landlord rightly cannot be compared to other social landlords (such as a large housing association) which have extensive policies and procedures in place and specialist staff trained in matters such as ASB. But nevertheless, the landlord does have policies and procedures which set out how it should respond to ASB, and on this occasion it has not provided sufficient evidence to show that its handling of this matter was in line with either its polices or was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
Given this conclusion, the Ombudsman considers that compensation would be warranted in this case in recognition of the landlord’s maladministration. When looking at the issue of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account its Dispute Resolution Principles (be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes) and its published Remedies Guidance.
In assessing the issue of compensation, the Ombudsman takes account of a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the failure, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions/inactions. It also considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the service failure by the landlord and the impact on the resident.
The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s overall handling, and taking into account all the above factors, and the limited evidence, the Ombudsman considers that an award of £200 compensation would be appropriate in this case.
The resident is unhappy with the landlord’s decision not to evict Tenant A, and he has said that he does not feel supported by the landlord. The resident’s concerns are duly noted. However, ultimately, the landlord’s stance is not unreasonable when it says that it cannot take tenancy enforcement action against Tenant A without sufficient evidence to do so; and the evidence available up till the time of the final complaint response shows that there was not enough evidence to pursue the type of enforcement action the resident was seeking (eviction).

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out how it handles complaints and the timeframes for its responses. Looking at the facts of this case, it is noted that there were shortcomings in the landlord’s overall handling of the complaint.
The resident logged a formal complaint on 27 November 2019. There is no evidence to show that this complaint was acknowledged by the landlord within the timeframe set out in its policy. Nor is there any evidence to show that the complaint was investigated in a timely manner.
The Stage 1 complaint response was not issued until 29 April 2020, some five months after the complaint had been logged. Again, there is no evidence to explain the cause of this significant delay. The landlord’s policy states that the response ought to be issued within 10 working days; as such, the delay of five months would be a significant failure.
The resident was unhappy with the Stage 1 complaint response and later requested that the complaint be escalated. The evidence provided by the landlord reveals that the escalation process was delayed partly by the landlord and partly by the resident not communicating by email his desire that the matter proceed to stage 2 until 26 October even though the available correspondence also shows that the possibility of an escalation request was known to the resident on 6 May 2020.
The stage 2 escalation request was then logged on or around 26 October 2020. The landlord responded appropriately at this time and sought to arrange a Stage 2 panel hearing, which then took place on 25 November 2020. The formal Stage 2 response was later issued on 10 December 2020, some seven months after the initial escalation request had been received. The landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to explain this delay. The landlord’s policy states that the Stage 2 response ought to be issued within 15 working days of the escalation request; as such, the delay of seven months is again a significant failure.
Whilst the landlord did apologise for the delay in issuing its Stage 1 complaint response, it failed to apologise for the delay with the Stage 2 response. Moreover, it also failed to consider if compensation was warranted for the significant delays in its complaint-handling.
Its failure to act in a timely manner meant that the resident experienced unnecessary additional inconvenience from not receiving the decision on his complaint. The landlord has failed to deal with the complaint in a timely manner, and it has therefore unnecessarily prolonged the complaints process. However, in part the delay (approximately half the period of delay) was caused by the resident not communicating in a timely manner his desie for a stage 2 escalation. Looking at the overall handling of the complaint itself (stage 1 and 2), and taking into account the significant delays noted above, the Ombudsman considers that an award of compensation of £100 would be warranted in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of ASB by his neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

Ultimately, the landlord’s decision not to take enforcement action was reasonable given the lack of evidence. However, there were shortcomings in its handling of the resident’s reports, in terms of evidencing its actions, being proactive and working with the resident and the Police and its communication with the resident.
With regards to the complaint handling, the landlord failed to act appropriately and in line with its complaints procedure. The Ombudsman is satisfied that there were significant delays in its handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Pay the resident £200 compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in its handling of the ASB reports.
2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified with its handling of the complaint.
Evidence of the payment of compensation to be provided to this Service within four weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord to review the failings identified in this report in relation to complaint handling and record-keeping and consider if any improvements can be made to its procedures to prevent such failings from happening again. This should include ensuring that its complaint handling staff are aware of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and complete the free online dispute resolution training for landlords if not done so recently.