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

Thrive Homes Limited (202123661)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123661

Thrive Homes Limited

4 November 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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and its handling of the relevant documentation.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused due to the impact of the ASB on the resident.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident reported ASB from two separate neighbours which, for the sake of clarity, will be referred to as ‘Neighbour A’ and ‘Neighbour B’.
  2. The resident initially reported ASB from Neighbour A on 27 April 2021; this consisted mostly of noise nuisance such as loud music, shouting and banging. On 06 May 2021, the resident contacted the landlord as there had been no improvement. The landlord advised that it had now been able to contact Neighbour A through a third party. From 24 August 2021, the resident provided the landlord with recordings of the noise nuisance and informed the landlord it was now impacting his mental health. Between August 2021 and September 2021, the resident continued to chase the landlord for an update on any action taken, and reported further incidents which included banging on his windows and the entry door being kicked.
  3. On 03 October 2021, the resident reported further incidents, and that Neighbour B was now involved in the ASB incidents, including making threats to the resident. The landlord raised an urgent ASB case and provided the resident with diary sheets to complete. The resident continued to chase the landlord for any updates on action throughout October 2021. On 20 October 2021, the landlord advised the resident that Neighbour B had attended a meeting to discuss the ASB. Between October 2021 and January 2022, the resident continued to provide the landlord with diary sheets about ASB incidents and request updates. The resident informed the landlord in January 2022 that he was aware of Neighbour B being evicted over the next few months, but reiterated the issues he was experiencing with Neighbour A. On 20 January 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that human faeces had been left on his car. The landlord advised the resident on 26 January 2022 that a breach of tenancy letter had been sent to Neighbour A. On 10 February 2022, Neighbour A and the resident agreed to mediation and Neighbour A signed a good neighbour agreement.
  4. In the resident’s initial complaint on 26 January 2022, he listed several issues of ASB, including: drug use, banging, shouting, arguing, and slamming doors. He also listed several of the landlord’s policies which he believed the landlord had not complied with. He was dissatisfied with the poor communication from the landlord, and he was unhappy that there had been no improvement. In the complaint escalation on 25 February 2022, the resident stated that issues had been reported repeatedly, but little action had been taken. He advised that court paperwork was incorrectly filled out in relation to Neighbour B’s eviction and this showed a lack of responsibility and was dissatisfied that the landlord had not considered the impact on his mental health. He also advised that he had been unable to swap property due to prospective tenants becoming aware of the ongoing issues and pulling out.
  5. In the landlord’s stage one response on 11 February 2022, it apologised for the occasions where it had not responded to the resident’s communication. It advised it had now implemented a buddy system to ensure communication was not missed in the future. It provided the resident with information on available mental health services and stated it could have used intervention methods earlier. It stated it would complete a risk assessment and call weekly with updates. The landlord also stated it would provide further staff training on handling such issues. In its stage two response on 23 March 2022 it informed the resident that the issues with the court case arose from a notice period being missed, but had now been re-submitted. It informed the resident that it had now implemented additional checks to ensure this does not happen again. The landlord also advised the resident it would now offer him a management move to a one bedroom flat with a communal garden.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to this Service on 19 May 2022. He was dissatisfied with the property offered by the landlord as it was not to the same standard of his current property, and that the landlord had not followed through with its promised actions in relation to his reports of ASB. He advised this has impacted his mental health. The resident is seeking for action to be taken against his neighbours and to be rehoused to another property which is the same or better standard than his current property.
  7. Following the landlord’s final response, between May and June 2022, the landlord reviewed the noise recordings and advised some were concerning, especially given the time they were taken at. It advised the resident it had carried out a police ASB survey and would discuss the results with him and was waiting for a court update for Neighbour B. The resident contacted this Service on 03 October 2022 to advise that the issue is ongoing, and he has received threats from the neighbour which he had reported to the police. He stated that the landlord’s communication has continued to be poor and it did not provide weekly updates as promised.

Assessment and findings

 Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident has stated that the ASB reported since April 2021 has impacted his mental and physical health. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for it to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. 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 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman may 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.
  2. The landlord had taken legal action against Neighbour B which resulted in a court case. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the court case due to the case being dismissed. Whilst this Service acknowledges the frustration for the resident due to paperwork mistakes leading to the case being dismissed, the Ombudsman cannot consider matters that are the subject of court proceedings. This is in accordance with 41(c) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s ‘Anti-Social Behaviour’ (ASB) policy states that ASB can include noise nuisance, criminal damage, verbal abuse and other types of criminality.
  2. The ASB policy defines ASB as conduct that:
    1. Has caused or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person
    2. Is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises
    3. Is capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person
  3. The ASB policy states that the landlord will:
    1. Respond sensitively to the victim
    2. Offer advice and signpost to appropriate third sector support for victims of ASB.
    3. Respond to ASB reports in line with severity of the incident
    4. Carry out a risk assessment where necessary
    5. Involve residents in the action place, and communicate reasonably
  4. The landlord’s ASB policy states that for a minor ASB complaint it should make contact within five days, and take agreed action within ten working days. For serious ASB complaints, it should make contact within three working days and take any agreed action within five working days. For very serious ASB complaints, it should make contact and take any action within one working day.

The landlord’s response to the reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and its handling of the relevant documentation.

  1.  In the landlord’s stage one response on 11 February 2022, it acknowledged numerous failings including its poor communication throughout the case, its failure to complete an action plan or risk assessment, in not keeping the resident completely up to date with any action and relevant timescales, and for not using intervention methods at an earlier point. These failings are not disputed and therefore it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess whether the landlord has improved its actions following this acknowledgement and whether it has offered redress for its failings in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. Within the stage one response, the landlord advised that it had implemented a buddy system in order to overcome communication being missed when staff members are absent. This was appropriate and is evidence the landlord was taking steps to improve its communication with residents in general. However, following the stage one response there were further communication failings. The resident had informed the landlord that he had been providing recordings through a noise app since September 2021, and the landlord had asked again in February 2022. The landlord did not review these recordings until 25 May 2022 when it agreed there were noise recordings which were concerning due to the time they had been taken. This suggests that the landlord’s record keeping in this case was poor, including after the upheld stage 1 response.
  3. Similarly, the landlord agreed to contact the resident weekly, and complete a risk assessment by 18 February 2022. The landlord acted appropriately and arranged several interventions including mediation between the resident and Neighbour A, as well as a good neighbour agreement. This is compliant with the landlord’s ASB policy which states the landlord will consider a range of interventions. However, as acknowledged in the stage 2 response, these actions should have been taken sooner. The landlord also advised the resident it had implemented further staff training in relation to handling ASB cases, which is evidence that it wanted to learn from the mistakes it had made.
  4. In its stage one response, the landlord also provided the resident with a range of services available that can assist him with his mental health and for further support in relation to being a victim of ASB. Whilst this was appropriate, and complaint with the landlord’s ASB policy which states that it will offer advice and signpost residents to appropriate third parties, it would have been best practice for the landlord to provide this information at an earlier stage.
  5. Whilst the landlord has clearly attempted to rectify its previous failings, the resident informed this Service on 03 October 2022 that the issue is ongoing, with little communication from the landlord. It is also evident throughout this case, that despite the landlord attempting to improve its handling of the reports, there were further failings in communication, delays and record-keeping, all of which have exacerbated the impact on the resident.
  6.  The landlord acted appropriately in apologising to the resident and informing her of the lessons it had learned from her complaint. It clearly recognised and accepted that its service had been poor, and the actions it took to remedy that would have been appropriate. However, there were further failings identified throughout this case, and the landlord failed to consider a fair and reasonable level of compensation it could offer to the resident to redress this. Therefore, this constitutes a service failure.
  7. The Ombudsman recommends £100 to £600 where there has been maladministration which has had an impact on the resident, and where a landlord has acknowledged its failings and attempted to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident. As the resident has advised the issue is ongoing, the landlord is ordered to address the incidents of ASB, and to provide the resident with updates about the action it is going take.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused due to the impact of the ASB on the resident.

  1. The resident regularly requested to be moved by the landlord due to the ongoing ASB issues throughout this case. The landlord addressed these concerns within 24 hours which was appropriate. Whilst this Service does not wish to take away from the severity of the resident’s reports, nor minimise the impact the issues have had on the resident, it is important to understand that a management move is normally reserved for the most extreme cases as set out in the landlord’s ASB policy. Therefore, it is reasonable that the landlord initially informed the resident that it could not consider this.
  2.  The landlord provided the resident with alternative ways to swap with other tenants due to it being unable to offer the tenant a move. However, the landlord would have been expected to provide an explanation of this to the resident, which it failed to do. Its responses to the resident were unreasonable and presented as dismissive of the resident’s concerns at times. One example of this was on the 08 September 2021 when the resident stated to the landlord that he thought it was unlikely anyone would swap due to the ongoing issues, and the landlord responded on 09 September and stated “There are always people willing to swap and move in to different areas”. This is not compliant with the landlord’s ASB policy which states that it would respond sensitively to the victim. It would be best practice for a landlord to explain the reasons behind its decision making, especially considering the resident had reported concerns a considerable amount of times.
  3. In the landlord’s final response on 23 March 2022 it did offer to move the resident into a different property. The resident declined this as they felt it was not like-for-like or of a better standard. Whilst landlords normally aim to provide a similar property, due to the urgency implied by the request and offer of a management move it is understandable that they are not always able to do this. Due to the limited stock available, landlord’s have to prioritise moves based on each individual case, and will prioritise cases with the highest severity first. It is also important to note that the resident’s understanding of like-for-like (that referenced the standard of the property) is not the policy meaning of this phrase. A property is normally considered like-for-like, in an emergency situation where the move away from the location is the most important priority, based on the type of property and number of bedrooms.
  4. Overall, whilst it is understandably frustrating for the resident that the landlord was unable to offer a move up to the same standard as his currently property, the landlord acted appropriately throughout by considering the move at different stages, and, following the issues increasing in severity, offering to move the resident.

Determination

  1.  In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in way the landlord responded to the reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and its handling of the relevant documentation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request to be rehoused due to the impact of the ASB on the resident.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £400 compensation. This is made up of:
    1. £200 for the inconvenience and distress caused by the landlord’s acknowledged delayed response to the ASB reports.
    2. £100 for poor record-keeping in relation to the ASB case.
    3. £100 for poor communication throughout the case.
    4. This should be paid within four weeks of the date of this letter.
  2. The landlord is ordered to create an action plan based on the current situation and to provide a copy of this to the resident within four weeks of the date of this letter. A copy should also be provided to this Service for our records. 
  3. The landlord is ordered to begin providing the resident with weekly updates about the ongoing issues of ASB as previously offered. If weekly updates are no longer considered to be required the landlord should explain its reasoning to the resident.