Connexus Housing One Limited (202001271)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001271

South Shropshire Housing Association

13 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:
1. The residents’ historic concerns about various issues including:
  1. The landlord’s handling of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and criminal damage to the property.
  2. The landlord’s handling of subsequent repairs to the property’s windows.
  3. The landlord’s notice of tenancy action against the residents.
  4. the conduct of the landlord’s previous local representative.
  5. parking problems around the property;
2. The landlord’s response to the residents’ concerns about noise nuisance from a neighbour’s parrot;
3. The landlord’s incorrect information in respect of the residents’ rent payment, along with its related communication and record keeping;
4. The landlord’s response to the residents’ concerns about neighbours deliberately blocking drains serving the property;
5. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The residents’ historic concerns about various issues.
Windows at the property were smashed during an ASB incident on 10 August 2018. Around the same time, the landlord notified the residents it was seeking possession of the property on the basis they breached the tenancy agreement on a number of occasions. The residents subsequently engaged a solicitor, which notified the landlord of impending legal action on 4 April 2019. This action covered the above issues along with the landlord’s handling of repairs, staff conduct and parking problems.
The solicitor’s correspondence to the residents on 16 April 2019 shows it felt the prospects of successful legal action were less than 50%. Nevertheless, the residents did not raise their concerns as a formal complaint until around
7 October 2019. This was around 14 months after the windows were smashed and more than nine months after the final parking incident occurred. In a letter to the residents on 20 December 2019, the landlord said it had previously addressed these concerns through their solicitor.
The residents later raised additional historic concerns during a formal complaint in 2021.These concerns covered a range of topics over a period between 2012 and 2019.
Paragraph 39(e) of the scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising”.
The above information shows the residents’ historic concerns are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because there was an unreasonable delay before the matters were brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint. This assessment therefore focused on the matters arising during the 2021 complaint that were within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.

Background and summary of events

Background

The residents are assured tenants, and their current tenancy agreement began on 4 June 2018. The property is a two-bedroom bungalow. The evidence suggests the residents have occupied the property since 2012. The residents have vulnerabilities relating to their physical health including visual and mobility issues.
The landlord’s current ASB policy, effective July 2021, shows the landlord will not move complainants or perpetrators to resolve an ASB case. This is because the landlord will deal with the ASB. Exceptions may be made in extreme situations involving significant safety risks. In such cases, the landlord will rely on recommendations from relevant agencies, such as the police, The Ombudsman was unable to find a more relevant document online.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. Its complaints procedure shows it will respond to complaints within ten working days at stage one. At stage two, it will respond within 20 working days. Complaints should be raised within three months of an incident arising. However, the landlord may use its discretion to investigate complaints raised outside of this timeframe.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repair history notes show the residents reported sewage backing up into the property’s toilet on 22 December 2020. The notes suggest the drains were cleared by the local water supplier the same day. They show the landlord had attended the same issue as an urgent repair the previous month. The history notes seen run until June 2021. They show the issue did not reoccur during this time.
Around the beginning of February 2021, the landlord’s local representative attempted to contact the residents in connection with rent arrears. The Ombudsman has seen a screen shot of the landlord’s undated correspondence to the residents. The correspondence said the representative had been trying to contact them by phone and text message in connection with a missed housing benefit payment. The correspondence asked the residents to call the landlord on a given number and provide up to date contact details.
On 11 March 2021 the residents notified the Ombudsman the landlord had not responded to their complaint concerning ASB and criminal damage, the landlord’s notice of tenancy action, staff conduct and parking issues. The Ombudsman subsequently told the landlord to respond to the residents’ complaint. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows was not included at this stage. The Ombudsman was unaware of any jurisdiction issues, or that the landlord had previously responded to the residents’ concerns, through their solicitor, at this time.
The landlord updated the Ombudsman on 23 March 2021. It said it acknowledged the residents’ complaint and spoke to them on 12 and 15 March 2021 respectively. It said the residents requested a meeting on the basis there was too much information to discuss their concerns over the phone. The landlord told the Ombudsman it needed additional time to respond since it was unsure of the issues to be investigated. Further, it needed to consider how to safely facilitate a meeting because the residents declined to meet at the landlord’s offices.
Following guidance from the Ombudsman, the landlord wrote to the residents on
1 April 2021. It said they were given the option to discuss their complaint over several phone calls. Further, they declined the landlord’s offer of a paid taxi to its offices. It also said the residents had raised concerns about holding the meeting in the property’s garden given the risk of being overheard.
The landlord said it would contact the residents again if the present pandemic restrictions changed. Alternatively, the residents could get in touch if they wanted to arrange a meeting in accordance with the landlord’s previous suggestions. The landlord confirmed the residents would receive a formal complaint response once it had fully investigated their concerns.
The landlord’s contact records show the parties provisionally agreed a meeting date on 4 May 2021.
The Ombudsman has seen the landlord’s notes from the meeting, which took place at the property on 18 May 2021. The notes suggest it lasted for around an hour and a half. In addition to multiple historic concerns, the notes also recorded several recent issues which are summarised below:
1. Noise nuisance from a neighbour’s pet parrot prevented the residents from hearing their television over a period of around three years. The notes said the residents raised the noise with the landlord again in March 2020, and they were subsequently given log sheets to record any disturbances. They also said the neighbours appeared to have moved the parrot since the residents had not experienced any intrusive noise for around five weeks.
2. The landlord incorrectly notified the residents of rent arrears in February 2021. The notes said, around this time, the landlord advised the residents it was expecting to receive their housing benefit payment. However, they show the residents paid their own rent, and they gave the landlord a confirmatory bank statement during the meeting.
3. The landlord attempted to contact the residents on a landline in relation to the payment. However, its records were incorrect because the residents did not have a landline. The notes show the residents asked why the landlord held incorrect contact details and why they were unable to get in touch with the landlord’s relevant local representative.
4. Drains serving the property were recently cleared by the local water supplier after the residents noted a foul smell. The water supplier advised the residents the blockage was caused by wipes which should not have been flushed down the toilet. The notes suggest the residents were suspicious that the blockage was caused intentionally by a malicious neighbour. This was given their experience of historic ASB issues.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 1 June 2021. It addressed around 25 issues which occurred before 2020, including the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows, along with the recent concerns reflected in the meeting notes. The main points were:
1. The landlord was aware the property’s windows were smashed in 2018 and that the situation was distressing for the residents. It was also aware that the alleged perpetrator occasionally stayed with the residents’ neighbour. This was acceptable in accordance with the landlord’s policies and procedures and the individual was not a registered tenant of the landlord.
2. The landlord had responded quickly and effectively to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the neighbour’s parrot. Since the issue was resolved, no further investigation was required.
3. The landlord had incorrectly notified the residents their rent was in arrears. The error was now rectified, and no further problems had occurred. Since the landlord addressed and responded to the issue at the time, no further investigation was required.
4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s comments about their difficulty contacting its local representative. It would monitor the situation on an ongoing basis and further issues should be reported to the landlords’ leadership team. While the landlord had restated the importance of timely communication to its staff, the nature of the representative’s role meant it was not always possible for them to immediately return calls.
5. The landlord had taken appropriate action in relation to an intermittent problem with the property’s drains. While the residents’ concerns around deliberate blockages were acknowledged, the landlord was unable to prove that inappropriate waste was maliciously flushed away by their neighbours. Since the issue had not reoccurred, the landlord would not conduct any further investigation.
6. The landlord was pleased the residents were no longer experiencing ASB issues and that they were happy with its new local representative. It was aware the residents raised many complaints about its previous representative. However, this individual was no longer an employee.
7. Since the residents’ concerns did not involve criminal or safeguarding issues, it would be inappropriate for the landlord to investigate their conduct further. This was because the landlord was unable to undertake disciplinary action against a former employee, even if such action was deemed necessary.
The landlord updated the Ombudsman the same day. It said most of the points discussed during the meeting were historic and had been resolved. It also said, though the resident’s concerns had not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, its stage one letter should be considered its final response to the complaint.
The residents updated the Ombudsman on 2 June 2021. They said the landlord should have investigated the broken windows properly at the time of the incident. They also said the neighbour was still living in the same property, but they should have been evicted.
During a call on 7 June 2022, the residents told the Ombudsman that previous ASB issues with neighbours were largely resolved. However, they said it was distressing to see the individual responsible for breaking the property’s windows, in 2018, staying with a neighbour on a regular basis. It was understood they felt that tenancy action should be taken against the neighbour concerned to prevent this from happening.
They also said parking issues began to occur again from April 2022. However, they did not report any other ongoing issues. Nor did they raise any of the recent concerns that arose during the meeting on 18 May 2021. The residents were encouraged to raise a new complaint with the landlord if they wished to pursue the new parking issues, which were not addressed by the landlord’s final response.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the residents have previously experienced a number of ASB incidents, some of which were highly distressing. For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman is unable to assess the landlord’s handling of their historic ASB concerns. It can assess the landlord’s response to the concerns raised during the formal complaint in 2021. This will be considered below in conjunction with the landlord’s complaint handling.
In relation to ASB, it may help to explain that the Ombudsman is unable determine whether a party is responsible for ASB. Further, this Service cannot compel a landlord to take action against neighbours. It is noted the landlord’s ASB policy suggests it is unlikely to rehouse any of the parties involved the dispute. No information was seen to indicate that the landlord is obliged to prevent the alleged perpetrator from staying with the neighbour based on recent events.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about noise nuisance from a neighbour’s parrot

It is noted the meeting notes suggest a significant portion of the landlord’s handling of the noise nuisance is likely to fall outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction based on paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme. However, the landlord told the Ombudsman the associated ASB case was closed in April 2021. On that basis, there may be aspects of the issue which the Ombudsman could consider.
The landlord said it responded quickly and effectively to the nuisance. It is unclear whether the residents were satisfied with this explanation and the Ombudsman has seen little evidence tosupport the landlord’s conclusion. However, the landlord appears to have responded to the concerns the residents raised during the meeting in May 2021.
It is understood, from speaking to the residents on 7 June 2022, that the noise nuisance has been resolved. Nevertheless, this Service used its inquisitorial remit to consider the accuracy of the landlord’s comments. However, based on the information seen, the Ombudsman was unable fairly say the landlord’s response was incorrect, and no failures were identified. Given the above, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns.

The landlord’s incorrect information in respect of the residents’ rent payment, along with its related communication and record keeping

The landlord accepted it incorrectly notified the residents their rent was in arrears. It also said the issue was addressed and rectified at the time. While no information was seen to confirm this, the residents have not disputed the landlord’s version of events. Nor was the matter raised during their discussion with the Ombudsman in June 2022. It is noted the landlord’s undated correspondence asked the residents to update their contact details to help it resolve the issue. This was a reasonable step on the landlord’s part.
No information was seen to show the landlord’s level of communication prompted excessive engagement from the residents, or that it caused them undue inconvenience. However, the landlord’s complaint response suggests it gave feedback to its local representative in respect of the residents’ concerns. It also confirms the residents were encouraged to raise the issue with the landlord’s leadership team in the event communication problems persisted. These were reasonable steps from the landlord and no information was seen to show the problem reoccurred.
That said, no information was seen to show the landlord apologised to the residents for providing incorrect information about their rent. Further, no evidence was seen to show their contact records were ultimately updated. An apology should have reasonably been included in the landlord’s complaint response in respect of any failures it identified, along with reassurance that the landlord held their correct contact details having amended it records.
Given the above, there was service failure in respect of the above complaint point. This is because the evidence suggests the landlord did not offer the residents sufficient redress for any failures it identified. Based on the information seen, an apology would have been appropriate in this case.

The landlord’s response to the residents’ concerns about neighbours deliberately blocking drains serving the property

The landlord’s repair records confirm it took appropriate action to resolve the blocked drains serving the property. The evidence also shows the cause of the blockages was successfully resolved because the problem did not reoccur. Having considered the landlord’s response to the residents’ concerns around deliberate blockages, the Ombudsman was unable to fairly say the landlord’s position was unreasonable.
This is because the landlord was unlikely to be able to establish any malicious intent by conducting further investigation into the matter. As a result, additional investigation would likely represent a disproportionate use of the landlord’s time and resources. No information was seen to show the landlord was obliged to conduct any further investigation. Given the above, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The timeline shows the landlord’s final response, at stage one, was delayed by around 45 working days. However, this delay was understandable given the residents preferred to discuss their complaint in detail during a meeting. The timeline confirms the landlord proactively sought to accommodate their preferences within the context of pandemic restrictions. For example, it offered to arrange several phone calls to allow the residents sufficient time to explain their concerns. It also offered to arrange a taxi to its offices to facilitate a meeting.
In the meantime, the landlord explained why it was unable to respond to the complaint, on 1 April 2021, and set out the next steps. Ultimately, the meeting took place at the property in accordance with the residents’ wishes. The meeting notes show the residents were given adequate time to discuss matters in detail. The above information shows the landlord engaged with the residents’ preferences in a positive manner.
The landlord’s final response letter suggests it responded accordingly to each complaint point the residents raised. Its responses broadly followed the same pattern since the landlord often said that too much time had passed to investigate an issue, or that appropriate action had already been taken in respect of a historic matter. The evidence seen suggests this was reasonable given the circumstances.
A notable exception to this pattern involved the residents’ historic concerns around the conduct of the landlord’s previous local representative. In its final response, the landlord indicated it would have used its discretion to investigate any historic issues involving criminal or safeguarding matters. This approach represents appropriate behaviour by the landlord. However, no such issues were raised so it was reasonable for the landlord to decline to investigate the staff conduct issues further.
Since the individual concerned was no longer the landlord’s employee, it was unable to take disciplinary action in the event it identified any inappropriate conduct. As a result, any further investigation of historic conduct issues was likely to represent a disproportionate use of the landlord’s time and resources.
Overall, the evidence shows there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling, which was broadly consistent with the landlord’s complaints procedure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s incorrect information in respect of the resident’s rent payment, along with its related communication and record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about noise nuisance from a neighbour’s parrot.
2. The landlord’s response to the residents’ concerns about neighbours deliberately blocking drains serving the property.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord responded to the residents’ concerns about noise nuisance. The residents’ comments suggest the situation has been resolved. No evidence was seen to show the landlord’s response was unfair or that the residents disagreed.
The landlord accepted the residents were given incorrect information about their rent. However, no evidence was seen to show the residents were offered sufficient redress in the form of an apology. This could reasonably have been included in the landlord’s final response, along with reassurance that the residents’ contact details had been successfully updated.
The evidence shows the landlord took appropriate action to resolve the blocked drains. No information was seen to show the landlord was obliged to conduct any further investigation to establish the intention behind the blockage.
The landlord was proactive in its complaint handling and the evidence shows it responded appropriately to the residents’ concerns.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord, if it has not done so already, to provide a written apology for any distress and inconvenience the residents were caused by its incorrect information, in respect of their rent payment along with its related communication and record keeping, within four weeks.
The landlord to check the residents’ contact details were correctly updated within four weeks. This is with a view to preventing any similar communication issues.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman evidence it complied with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.