Clarion Housing Association Limited (202102770)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102770

Clarion Housing Association Limited

21 March 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the landlord’s estate management including:
  1. Maintenance of the communal garden.
  2. Repairs to uneven slabs on the path around the flats.
  3. Rubbish being dumped in the communal bin store.
2. Reports of Anti-social behaviour (ASB) by his neighbour, including dog fouling and drug taking.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a one bedroom, first floor flat. The tenancy commenced on 29 October 2007.,
The resident has been raising concerns regarding the maintenance of the communal gardens for a number of years, going back as far as 2003-4. The Ombudsman expects a formal complaint to be made within a reasonable time, of the matter complained about occurring, normally within six months. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from the contractor’s visit of 2 April 2020 which was referred to in the resident’s letter to the landlord on 25 April 2020.

Summary of events

On 25 April 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord referring to a former complaint he had made, in August 2019, regarding the standard of the maintenance of the communal garden in comparison to how it had been maintained in the past. The resident said that the grounds maintenance contractor had cut the grass in the communal area on 2 April 2020, but did not cut the grass opposite the flats and when they returned two or three days later only strimmed that area. The landlord had agreed to repair the uneven slabs on the path around the flats, but nothing had happened and that there was a hedge which was almost blocking a path.
The resident’s correspondence to the landlord on 22 June 2020, indicates that the landlord had responded to his concerns about the communal garden on 30 April 2020, advising that the area was now maintained by grounds maintenance contractors and so would not be maintained to the same level as it had been when the grounds were maintained by gardeners. The landlord also advised that there were some tidying work to be done, when they were able to get back on site properly.
Between 22 and 30 June 2020, a period of 8 days, the resident made three reports to the landlord regarding his neighbour’s drug smoking and dog fouling on 22, 26 and 30 June 2020.
On 15 July 2020, the landlord called the resident regarding his reports of 26 and 30 June 2020 regarding dog fouling and neighbours smoking drugs. During the call the resident said the dog fouling was now being picked up but questioned if the neighbour had permission to keep a dog. The resident also reported that there were still large items being left in the bin shed which the refuse collectors were not taking away. The landlord advised the resident that if the neighbour did not have permission for the dog it would address that and that it would send a block letter regarding the issue of drugs and items in the bin area.
On 25 July 2020, the resident wrote to landlord following a call from the landlord on 3 July 2020. The resident said that:
1. During the call he had been told that his report of the dog fouling would be investigated and that he would be advised of the outcome in due course.
2. A few days after the call he noticed that someone had removed the fouling, however, for the past four to five evenings the neighbour had reverted to allowing his dog to foul the communal gardens again.
3. He reminded the landlord of a request he had made in August 2019 for the cutting back of the trees and hedges in the communal gardens and asked the landlord to advise new tenants that the bin shed were not for large items as the rubbish collectors will not take such items and the bin shed were full.
On 3 August 2020, the resident again complained about dog fouling in the communal area and providing seven photographs dated between 12 June and 3 August 2020, which the resident said had been requested by the landlord.
On 28 August 2020, the resident reported that their neighbour had been smoking drugs in their flat on daily basis. The resident advised the landlord that he had reported this to the Police on a number of occasions but they had done nothing about it. The landlord wrote to the resident the same day confirming the agreed action plan: that the resident was to complete incident diaries and send them to the landlord via email, that once the diaries had been returned the landlord would discuss the report with the alleged perpetrator and keep the resident updated.
On 11 September 2020, landlord wrote to resident to advise that it had not received any diary sheets from him, that no further reports had been made and therefore it was going to close the case.
On 16 September 2020, the resident wrote to express his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s letter of 11 September 2020, enclosing copies of five diaries dated between 6 August 2020 and 11 September 2020 regarding his neighbour smoking drugs.
Between 4 October and 28 November 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord on at least five occasions, referring to his complaint regarding dog fouling, the cutting down of trees and hedges and the standard of the communal gardens. In his correspondence the resident referred to the landlord’s inaction, his previous letters of complaint for which he never received any replies and that he not seen any improvement in the situation.
On 9 December 2020 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and advised that it would aim to respond within 10 working days.
The landlord issued its Stage One response on 24 December 2020:
1. With regards to the resident’s reports of ASB the landlord said that:
  1. It could not disclose any personal information regarding his neighbour but that the Neighbourhood Response Officer (NRO) was currently working with them to give them support where required.
  2. The NRO had attended his block on 7 December 2020, spoke to his neighbour about the dog fouling, noting that there was minimal evidence of dog fouling at the time (although there was some present in the garden area).
  3. The only previous report of ASB, regarding dog fouling, was made by the resident on 26 June 2020 and that case was closed on 15 July 2020 with an action plan put in place following communication with the resident’s neighbour. The landlord said that it had carried out all required actions to date.
  4. That it had issued the resident with diary sheets following his report regarding the smell of cannabis on 6 August 2020 but this case was closed on 11 September 2020, and no further action taken, as it had not received any completed diary sheets from the resident.
2. With regards to the resident’s concerns regarding the communal gardens, the landlord said:
  1. The service provided was grass cutting, trimming, shrub work and hedge cutting, and at that time leaf clearance. Grass cutting had ceased as it was now the winter months.
  2. That its Estate Supervisor and contractor had carried out a site visit on 15 December 2020, that it was aware that some areas had not been serviced as well as they could be, including the hedges, and that there may have been some confusion over which areas the contractor was supposed to be attending, which the site visit on 15 December 2020 would rectify.
On 6 January 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to escalate his complaint. The resident said that he had written to the landlord on 12 occasions regarding his concerns regarding the communal gardens which the landlord had failed to act on at the time or to acknowledge in its stage one response. That he had reported bulk waste being left in the communal areas which he was advised the caretakers would address and that nothing had been done. With regards to the dog fouling, that the neighbour had cleared any dog fouling on the day the landlord was due to attend. The resident questioned whether the neighbour had permission for the dog and raised his concerns about shouting coming from the same neighbour’s property, the Police attending and the smell of cannabis in the block.
On 27 January 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to chase its response to is request to escalate his complaint. The landlord acknowledged the delay in it dealing with his request, which it explained was due to higher volumes than usual, and that it would aim to provide its response within 20 working days.
The landlord issued its final response on 26 February 2021, the resident’s complaint was not upheld. The landlord said that it had reviewed its Stage one response and was satisfied that, whilst some of the issues regarding estate services had taken longer than it would have liked, due to weather conditions and the impact the current covid restrictions had had on its contractors, its actions were in line with its policies and procedures and that the response itself was appropriate and reasonable in addressing all the issues the resident had raised in his complaint. The landlord did however acknowledge the delay in providing its response for which it apologised and offered the resident £25 compensation.
The landlord also used its response to provide the resident with further information regarding the issues he had raised:
1. With regards to the neighbour, the smell of cannabis and their dog, the landlord said that both its Tenancy Specialist (TS) and NRO had been working with the neighbour to resolve this. That the TS and NRO would continue to review and monitor the situation together with any new reports regarding these issues.
2. With regards to the standard of works carried out to the communal garden, the landlord confirmed that this had been taken up with its contractors in December 2020, when the Estate Manager met with them.
3. With regards to the fly tipped rubbish the landlord explained what its position was with regards to such reports; that it would ensure that it removed as quickly as possible and that if able to identify who had done the fly-tipping it would either take action itself or work with the local Council’s enforcement team.
4. With regards to the uneven pathway, this was attended by one of its Technical Officers and a job raised for the slabs to be lifted and re-laid to ensure that there was no further trip hazard.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies, procedures and agreements.

The landlord’s ASB policy lists three categorises ASB: Crime, the policy notes that residents should report any illegal drug use and supply to the Police, where it does not have any other associated ASB issues. The landlord would not generally leading on resolving but will work collaboratively with the Police and that it will only investigate Noise and other forms of ASB when its threshold is met.
For Noise and other ASB reports the landlord’s ASB policy states that the thresholds are as follows:
1. three separate incidents reported in the last 7 days by the same person or a member of the same household.
2. five separate incidents reported in the past 28 days by the same person or member of the same household.
3. Two separate incidents reported in the past 28 days by two or more people from different households.
The landlord’s compensation policy suggest ranges of discretionary compensation in line with those in this Service’s remedies guidance.

Concerns about the landlord’s estate management, including maintenance of the communal garden, repairs to uneven slabs on the path around the flats and rubbish being dumped in the communal bin store.

The resident initially wrote to the landlord on 25 April 2020 to express his concern about the standard of the communal garden. In his letter of 25 April 2020 the resident also raised concerns about uneven slabs on the path around the flats which he said the landlord had agreed to repair but nothing had happened.
From the information the resident provided in his correspondence of 22 June 2020, the landlord responded to the resident on 30 April 2020, explaining what the contract covered and acknowledging that there were some works that needed to be carried out, but these could not take place until the contractor was able to get back on site. This service has not seen a copy of the letter from the landlord to the resident and the resident’s correspondence does not state what the works were. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations with regards to the communal garden, there is no evidence of the landlord responding to, or taking any action with regards to the uneven slabs at that time.
The first report the resident made regarding large items being left in the bin shed was when the landlord called the resident on 15 July 2020 to discuss the reports of ASB.
There is then no further evidence of the landlord either responding to or taking any further actions with regards to the resident’s concerns until its response to the resident’s complaint on 24 December 2020 at which point the landlord advised that a site visit had been carried out by its Estate Supervisor and the contractor on 15 December 2020, which it said would rectify the issues of areas where the service had not been what it should have been.
Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to carry out the visit to address the resident’s concerns, it is noted that the inspection did not take place until after the resident’s formal complaint had been acknowledged by the landlord on 9 December 2020, and some eight months after the resident’s initial contact on 25 April 2020. It is also noted that this service has not had sight of the inspection report and so it is unclear what was inspected nor what the outcome of that inspection was.
Given that the resident had contacted the landlord on multiple occasions expressing his dissatisfaction with the service being provided, and on at least five occasions specifically referring to a complaint, before the complaint was acknowledged it is clear that the landlord missed an opportunity to log a complaint when it was clear that a formal complaint was being made. This resulted in the resident having to wait an unreasonable amount of time for the landlord to address his concerns and carry out the inspection, which clearly added to the resident’s frustration. It is also noted that in the landlord’s stage one response there was no mention of the uneven paving slabs or the bin shed.
In its final response the landlord acknowledged that there had been delays with regards to the response from its estate services, explaining that this was due to weather conditions and covid restrictions. However, the landlord failed to:
1. Make any reference to the multiple contact it had received from the resident between 25 April and 28 November 2020, despite this being raised as a concern by the resident in his escalation request.
2. Provide the resident with any indication of what had been identified during its inspection on 15 December 2020 and subsequently taken up with its contractor to rectify or when the resident might expect any issues raised to be dealt with.
3. Explain what actions it had taken, and when, with regards to the resident’s reports of fly-tipping.
  1. It is noted by this service that in July 2020 the landlord said that when it sent a block letter regarding the issue of drugs and it would also raise the issue of items in the bin area. However, as the landlord has not provided a copy of this letter. Whilst in his correspondence to the landlord on 16 September 2020 the resident made reference to the letter this was only on relation to the ASB, and so it has not been possible to confirm whether the letter issued by the landlord did or did not make reference to the bin use of the bin area as well.
  2. It is also noted that in his correspondence to the landlord of 6 January 2021 the resident said that he had been advised that the caretakers would address the issue of the bulk waste but that that nothing had been done.
4. Explain why the works to the uneven slabs had not been addressed before given that the resident had reported the issue in April 2020, almost nine months earlier. No evidence has been provided by the landlord which confirms when this job was raised. The landlord also failed to provide the resident with any information about when he might expect the repair to be carried out.
As result of these failings I am satisfied that the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns fall short of what is reasonable in the circumstances and amount to maladministration in this instance.

Reports of ASB by the resident’s neighbour, including dog fouling and drug taking.

The role of the Ombudsman is to investigate the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports rather than to establish who was responsible for any anti-social behaviour. In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration, this report has considered what the landlord was committed to do under its ASB policy and whether it behaved in a manner that was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
As the resident had reported three separate incidents of his neighbour’s drug smoking and dog fouling in a period just over the 7 day threshold given in the landlord’s ASB policy it was appropriate for the landlord to commence an investigation. Under the ASB policy, the landlord should have contacted the resident within five working days. Whilst no evidence has been seen of the landlord’s call to the resident on 3 July 2020, the resident’s correspondence on 25 July 2020 confirms that this call took place, in accordance with required timescales. There is also evidence of the landlord calling the resident again on 15 July 2020.
It is noted that the landlord’s ASB policy also states that the resident should report illegal drug use to the police, which the resident later confirmed he had done but the Police were taking no action.
The resident’s letter to the landlord on 16 September 2020 confirms that the landlord subsequently did take some reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns, including writing letters to all residents on 13 August 2020.
Following further reports by the resident regarding his neighbour smoking drugs the landlord again took reasonable steps by agreeing an action plan with the resident on 28 August 2020 by which he would complete incident diaries and once these had been returned to the landlord it would discuss his reports with the neighbour.
As the resident had not returned any incident diaries to the landlord by 11 September 2020 it was reasonable for the landlord to close the case and to advise the resident as such. Five days later, on 16 September 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to express his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of his reports and at that point forwarded copies of incident diaries covering the period between 6 August and 11 September 2020, all relating to the neighbour smoking drugs.
Between 4 October and 28 November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord on at least five occasions regarding his neighbour’s drug smoking and dog fouling, however, there is no evidence of any further contact with the resident by the landlord regarding these matters until its stage one response on 24 December 2020, almost one month later.
Regular, clear and accurate communication is vital to keeping residents updated. Even when there is no progress to report, an update to that effect would have reassured the resident that their concern had not been forgotten.
In its stage one response the landlord explained that its NRO had spoken to his neighbour on 7 December 2020 and was working with that neighbour to give them support whilst required. Whilst these were all reasonable steps for the landlord to take it must be noted that no evidence of the landlord’s contact with the neighbour nor of the landlord keeping the resident informed about what actions it was taken has been seen by this service.
It is also noted that the landlord said that the only previous report the resident had made regarding dog fouling was on 26 June 2020, however this service has seen evidence of the resident reporting his concerns on 22, 26 and 30 June, 25 July, 3 August and on at least five occasions between 4 October and 28 November 2020.
In its final response the landlord provided further confirmation that its TS and NRO had been working with the neighbour and that they would be monitoring the situation together with any new reports regarding the concerns raised. Again, whilst this would indicate that the landlord was taking reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns, the landlord has provided this service with no contemporaneous evidence to substantiate its position with regards to its contact with the neighbour.
This omission would indicate that either the landlord has the required evidence but has not provided it to this service or poor record keeping, and together with the other failures identified, its poor communication with the resident and its failure to acknowledge the number of times he had reported his concerns, have resulted in a finding of maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s estate management.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s reports of Anti-social behaviour (ASB) by his neighbour, including dog fouling and drug taking.

Reasons

Whilst the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s initial concerns regarding the communal garden regarding it not being maintained to the same standard it had in the past and carried out the visit to address the resident’s concerns, the inspection did not take place until after the resident’s formal complaint had been acknowledged by the landlord on 9 December 2020, and some eight months after the resident’s initial contact on 25 April 2020. This was not a reasonable amount of time for the resident to wait for the landlord to carry out the inspection and clearly added to the resident’s frustration. Whilst in its final response the landlord acknowledged that there had been delays with regards to the response from its estate services, the landlord failed to make any reference to the multiple contact it had received from the resident, despite this being raised as a concern by the resident in his escalation request, nor did it provide the resident with any indication when he might expect the issues identified in its inspection of the garden, or the uneven slab, to be rectified.
Whilst the landlord did take some reasonable steps in its response to the resident’s reports, the landlord failed to provide this service with a number of key documents necessary to evidence that it acted reasonably or in accordance with its ASB policy when responding to the resident’s reports. These omissions indicate that the landlord either failed to appropriately follow its ASB policy or that poor record keeping resulted in it not being able to provide this service with the relevant information. There was also poor communication by the landlord and a failure to recognise and acknowledge the number of times the resident had raised his concerns regarding his neighbour’s drug taken and their dog fouling in the communal area.

Orders and recommendations

That within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord is to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £200 for its failures with regards to its estate management, including maintenance of the communal garden, repairs to uneven slabs on the path around the flats and rubbish being dumped in the communal bin store.
3. Pay the resident a further £100 for its failure to evidence that it acted reasonably or in accordance with its ASB policy when responding to the resident’s reports.
4. Review the lessons learnt from this case in relation to how it can ensure that it maintains accurate, contemporaneous records on reports it receives and actions it takes in response so that it can both effectively manage any issued raised by its resident and provide the relevant information when asked by this service.
5. Confirm that it has complied with all of the above orders.