Orbit Group Limited (202004678)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004678

Orbit Group Limited

12 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).
2. Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of a one bedroom flat owned and managed by the landlord.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that it recognises the serious impact of hate incidents and the role it has in tackling them as part of a multi-agency approach. In such cases it will apply its hate Incident policy.
The landlord’s ASB policy and its hate incidents policy say that it expects allegations to be factual and detailed enough for it to take action if necessary and it may refuse to accept an allegation if it is not given sufficient information. The landlord will consider early on the support needs of complainants. Where support needs are identified it will make individuals aware of the support available to them, or it may with permission, make a specific support referral. Before closing a case, the landlord will contact residents and clearly explain why it is doing so.
The landlord’s hate incident policy says that it considers hate incidents as: “Any behaviour which is deliberately intended to harm or intimidate a person(s) which is perceived by the complainant(s) or any other persons(s), as being motivated by prejudice or hate. It may or may not constitute a criminal offence.” It acknowledges that hate incidents are “particularly offensive as they are directed at an individual…due to their actual or perceived … sexual orientation…”. In some cases the landlord will not always be the organisation with the responsibility or powers to deal with the allegation(s) made. In these circumstances the landlord will adopt a partnership approach and work proactively with other organisations such as the Police.
The hate incidents policy says that in all situations the landlord will immediately open a case and will respond within 1 working day of receiving the allegation. The landlord will quickly agree an action plan with the resident which will include how and when it will keep in contact, any support needs the resident may have and how these are to be delivered, managing expectations and the landlord’s intentions as to how it intends to manage the case with the resident’s support. Any action the landlord may take will be proportionate to the type of allegation made and will be at the landlord’s discretion. As a matter of routine, the landlord will offer to make a referral to Victim Support unless another organisation has already done so.
The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced specific measures designed to give victims and communities a say in the way that complaints of anti-social behaviour are dealt with. This includes the Community Trigger (also known as the ASB Case Review), which gives victims of persistent anti-social behaviour reported to any of the main responsible agencies (such as local authority, police, housing provider) the right to request a multi-agency case review of their case where a local threshold is met.
The landlord’s complaints procedure has two formal stages, the investigation stage and the review stage. At both stages the landlord will contact the resident within 3 working days to acknowledge their concerns. At stage one the landlord will aim to respond to the complaint within 10 working days.
The landlord’s complaints procedure says that at times some residents may contact this Service before raising issues with itself. If there has been no stage 1 complaint issued, the landlord will email this Service to advise that the complaint has not exhausted its complaints procedure and will be allocated to a case handler.
On 24 May 2020 the resident sent the landlord an email concerning the behaviour of his neighbour. He said that on 22 May 2020 he had shouted out of his window to the neighbour asking him to turn down the music. The resident said that someone then started banging on his door and shouted at him to come outside and was verbally abusive. The resident had telephoned the police and the incident was recorded as a public order offence. The resident said that the situation with the neighbours was having a detrimental impact on his mental health and affecting the enjoyment of his home.
On 28 May 2020 the resident sent a further email to the landlord about the behaviour of other neighbours, specifically incidents of verbal abuse. The resident asked to be moved to a new property.
On 2 June 2020 the resident sent an email to the landlord saying that he had not had a response from the landlord to his emails dated 24 May 2020 and 28 May 2020.
On 4 June 2020 the resident sent an email to the landlord, attaching a letter from his GP saying that he was being affected by ASB and he wished to move.
On 8 June 2020 the landlord sent the resident an email saying that it was unable to put a management move forward based solely on the information from the resident’s GP and asking if he had received any support from other agencies who could provide a supporting statement on his behalf.
On 11 June 2020 and 12 June 2020, the landlord attempted to speak to the resident by telephone about the ASB reports and left a voicemail message.
On 17 June 2020 the resident sent an email to the landlord asking it to contact a police sergeant at the neighbourhood policing team and providing a crime reference number in relation to homophobic abuse that he had received from his neighbours. The resident asked the landlord to contact him to arrange a move to a different area.
Also on 17 June 2020 the landlord sent an email to the resident saying that it had tried to contact him. The landlord offered to meet with the resident to discuss the case in detail and go over the next steps and asked the resident to contact it about arranging an appointment. The landlord also explained that unless the resident engaged with it, it would be unable to investigate his allegations further.
On 18 June 2020 the resident sent the landlord an email saying that it had failed to explain why the information provided by his GP was not sufficient for a management move and what other information was needed. The landlord replied to the resident the same day again saying that unless the resident was willing to engage with the landlord then it was unable to move forward with his allegations. The landlord again offered to meet with the resident or to refer him to a tenancy coach to assist him in moving. However, the resident’s permission was required to refer him to a tenancy coach.
Also on 18 June 2020 the resident spoke with the landlord and said that he felt harassed and intimidated by his neighbours. The landlord says that it informed the resident that for it to deal with these issues, it would need to contact the alleged perpetrators with a view to taking possible enforcement action. The landlord says that it explained to the resident that in dealing with reports of ASB its approach was not to move people, but the focus was to quickly tackle the alleged behaviour. The landlord maintains that it asked to meet with the resident, but he ended the call advising that he did not wish to progress with the allegations. The landlord therefore closed its file.
Also on 18 June 2020 the landlord responded to an enquiry by the resident’s MP saying that the resident’s request for a management move was “unsubstantiated, due to it lacking in evidence”. The landlord explained that “it did not appear that [the resident] understood the requirement to further engage with [the landlord] to enable it to assist him with the allegations of ASB. It is important that [the resident] understands that [the landlord] would only be able to request a Management Move should it be deemed absolutely necessary. This is normally due to concerns about safeguarding of a tenant. However, as per the process, an investigation would be required prior to this decision.” The landlord further explained that it would look to make a decision about a management move having liaised with any third party organisations that may also be involved e.g. the local police. The landlord noted that the resident had requested that it engage with the police, and this was something it would look to do, but this still required the resident’s cooperation and engagement.
On 19 June 2020 the resident telephoned the landlord’s tenancy services officer and advised her to speak with the landlord’s tenancy services manager who was aware of his case. Following the resident terminating the call the landlord said that, concerned for his welfare, it made a referral to a support service.
On 25 June 2020 the landlord received a letter from the resident’s community psychiatric nurse saying that it would be helpful for him to be placed in more appropriate accommodation nearer to family support as a matter of urgency “to maximise his independence and promote recovery of his mental health.” The nurse also said that “In recent months [the resident] has been the subject of intimidation and homophobic abuse which he has reported to [the police] and to his local housing association, however he reports not receiving any help/support from them.”
On 16 July 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident’s support worker and agreed that a joint meeting should take place between the resident, his support worker and the landlord.
On 20 July 2020 the resident sent an email to the landlord saying that it had not acted on his email dated 17 June 2020 (see paragraph 16 above) in which he said he had reported an assault. The landlord telephoned the resident the same day and left a voicemail. The landlord also sent the resident an email the same day stating that it needed to discuss the situation further with him. The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 22 July 2020 stating he would only discuss the matter via email.
The landlord spoke to the resident’s support worker on 16 July 2020 and 29 July 2020. The landlord maintains that the support worker said that he was struggling to engage the resident and agreed that a joint meeting would take place away from the property.
On 20 July 2020 the resident instigated the community trigger. The landlord submitted information concerning the community trigger on 24 July 2020. The decision on the community trigger was that all agencies (the landlord, the police and the local authorities) had fulfilled their duties, but the resident had not engaged with the processes. The resident appealed and this was heard on 23 September 2020 and the outcome remained the same. The resident further appealed the community trigger, and the appeal was heard on 19 October 2020. The appeal was heard by a local councillor and the outcome remained the same. The landlord maintains that the police reported that the resident did not engage with them and that of his reports, none had resulted in crimes being upheld or brought to conviction.
On 2 August 2020 the landlord again spoke to the resident’s support worker about trying to arrange a meeting with the resident. On 3 August 2020 the landlord sent an email to the resident saying that it had discussed the case with his support worker and couldn’t deal with the case in its entirety via email. The landlord asked the resident to contact his support worker so a joint meeting could take place.
On 3 September 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident saying that it was closing its ASB case due to lack of engagement by the resident. The landlord said that it was unable to carry out an investigation via email or letter and the resident had advised that he did not wish to engage with it face to face, despite the landlord offering to visit the resident and making arrangements to have an external meeting room available. The landlord said that should the resident wish to engage and allow the landlord to investigate further it would be happy to reopen the case.
Following contact from the resident this Service sent an email to the landlord on 15 September 2020 asking it to contact the resident about his complaint about its response to his reports of ASB within 15 working days. Following further contact from the resident this Service sent another email to the landlord on 29 October 2020 asking it to contact the resident about the complaint within five working days.
On 10 December 2020 the resident called the landlord to report neighbours putting items in the communal gardens and looking through other residents’ windows. The landlord’s notes say that it telephoned the resident on 11 December 2020, but the resident hung up “before anything could materialise from the call.” The landlord visited the area on 15 December 2020 and found no issues with items in the communal area.
Following further contact from the resident this Service sent the landlord an email on 17 January 2021 asking it to deal with the complaint.
The landlord sent the resident its stage one response to the complaint on 20 January 2020. In its stage one complaint response the landlord did not uphold the complaint and:
1. Referred to its response to the resident’s MP on 18 June 2020, where it had said that the resident’s request for a management move was unsubstantiated, due to it lacking in evidence.
2. Said that the decision on the community trigger was that all agencies had fulfilled their duties and that the resident had not engaged with the processes.
3. Explained that since the outcome of the community trigger appeal the landlord had only received contact from the resident on 11 December 2020. The report was made on a Friday, and the following Tuesday, the landlord had visited the property and found the area clear.
4. Confirmed that it had communicated with the resident and responded with the relevant information as requested and its stance remained unchanged from the decision provided to the resident’s MP on 18 June 2020.
5. Explained that, as previously communicated to the resident, for it to carry out a full investigation into ASB issues, the resident would need to engage with the appropriate agencies. The landlord said that this had not been done and therefore, it had been unable to continue with the investigation.
Following contact from the resident, this Service requested that the landlord escalate the resident’s complaint on 15 February 2021. The landlord provided its stage two response to the complaint on 2 March 2021. In its response the landlord agreed with its Stage 1 response and said that it was not able to uphold the complaint as the landlord had “not been allowed to try and resolve [the resident’s] allegations due to a lack of engagement by [the resident].”
The landlord’s stage two response dated 2 March 2021 was its final response to the resident’s complaint, confirming that the landlord’s internal complaints response had been exhausted.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

It is evident that this situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to firstly explain that the Ombudsman’s role is not to decide if the actions of the resident’s neighbours amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
During the course of this investigation the resident has informed this Service that he has concerns about information provided by the landlord in a tenancy reference to another housing provider about an incident of ASB in August 2021. The Ombudsman’s role is to investigate complaints brought to it that have exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints process. This investigation report, therefore, concerns the matters which were the subject of the resident’s formal complaint made via this Service in September 2020 and which were the subject of the landlord’s final response dated 2 March 2021.
In its responses to the resident’s reports of ASB the landlord:
1. Attempted to speak to the resident by telephone about the ASB reports.
2. Explained to the resident that in dealing with reports of ASB its approach was not to move people, but the focus was to quickly tackle the alleged behaviour.
3. Offered to meet with the resident to discuss the case in detail and go over the next steps and asked the resident to contact it about arranging an appointment.
4. Offered to refer the resident to a tenancy coach to assist him with moving.
5. Made a referral to a support service as it was concerned for the resident’s welfare.
6. Spoke to the resident’s support worker and agreed that a joint meeting should take place between the resident, his support worker and the landlord.
7. Explained to the resident why it was closing its ASB file once the resident had informed it that he did not wish to progress with the allegations.
8. Provided information for the community trigger review.
9. Visited the area on 15 December 2020 and found no issues with items in the communal area.
The landlord’s actions set out in the previous paragraph demonstrate its response to the resident’s allegation of ASB. However, having received reports of hate incidents (from both the resident and his community psychiatric nurse), there is no evidence that the landlord took the following actions in accordance with the provision of its hate incidents policy:
1. Offer to make a referral to Victim Support.
2. Liaise with the police about the incidents, despite the provisions of its hate incidents policy that it will adopt a partnership approach and work proactively with other organisations such as the Police.
The landlord informed the resident’s MP in its letter dated 18 June 2020 that the resident had requested that it engage with the police, and this was something it would look to do, but this still required the resident’s cooperation and engagement. However, as the resident had provided the landlord with the relevant police crime number the landlord was in a position to liaise with the police about the hate incident without any further information required from the resident.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was therefore inappropriate and not in accordance with its obligations under its hate incidents policy. This represents service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints handling was inappropriate and represented a service failure by the landlord as:
1. The landlord did not respond to this Service’s emails dated 15 September 2020 and 29 October 2020 to advise that the complaint had not exhausted its complaints procedure and would be allocated to a case handler, despite the provisions of its complaints procedure (see paragraph 9 above).
2. Having received the resident’s complaint via this Service on 15 September 2020 the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint or provide its response until 20 January 2021, 88 working days later and 78 working days outside the 10 working day timescale set out in its complaints procedure (see paragraph 8 above).

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).
2. Complaints handling.

Reasons

Whilst the landlord’s response to most of the resident’s reports of ASB was in accordance with its procedures its actions were not an appropriate response to the resident’s reports of a hate incident.
The landlord complaints handling showed unreasonable delay and the landlord did not respond to this Service in accordance with the provisions of its complaint procedure.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of the determination:
1. To pay the resident compensation totaling £275, made up as follows:
  1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s response to his reports of a hate incident.
  2. £125 for the time and trouble spent pursuing this complaint due to the landlord’s delays in responding.
2. Contact the resident to confirm whether he is currently experiencing any ASB and if so, the landlord should agree an action plan with the resident going forward, including timeframes for actions to be taken.
3. Conduct a management review of this case to identify whether staff training is needed to ensure that its hate incidents policy is followed particularly in relation to liaising with other agencies and to provide this Service with a summary of the review.