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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202123312)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123312

Sanctuary Housing Association

27 October 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 resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour (Mr A).
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and occupies the flat below her neighbour, Mr A.
  2. The resident first reported Mr A’s behaviour to the landlord on 15 February 2021. The landlord opened an ASB case on 4 March 2021 after a further report from the resident in which she described Mr A playing loud music, slamming doors, shouting from his balcony, having guests at unsocial hours and behaving inappropriately to her. The resident said that this was causing her stress as she was six months pregnant at the time.
  3. Over the following nine months the resident made repeated reports, sometimes daily, of Mr A and his frequent visitors causing excessive noise, using drugs and being intimidating to other residents. During this time the landlord sent three warning letters, on 12 April, 22 April and 18 June 2021, before issuing a Section 21 notice to Mr A on 2 December 2021 when it advised him it would be ending his tenancy. Throughout this period, the resident stayed away from the property on numerous occasions, with neighbours, with family, in hotels and at caravan parks as she said remaining at the property caused her and her baby distress. She informed the landlord on numerous occasions that hers and her baby’s sleep were affected by the loud noises from Mr A’s property, and in later months she said she experienced high levels of anxiety.
  4. On returning to her property on 6 January 2022, the resident noted that Mr A was still in residence despite the Section 21 eviction notice period expiring. The landlord explained to her on 31 January 2022 that it had needed to extend his tenancy due to its delay in producing paperwork to apply to the court to have Mr A removed. The resident then sought the intervention of this Service on 24 January 2022 to raise a complaint with the landlord about its handling of the ASB.
  5. The landlord’s final stage complaint response to the resident on 6 April 2022 noted that it could not evidence that it had followed its ASB procedure in carrying out an initial risk assessment, agreeing an action plan with her, or setting a contact arrangement. It confirmed that it was in the process of court action to remove Mr A from his tenancy but it needed to wait for the tenancy extension to complete before it could apply to the court again. The landlord noted that the resident emailed its CEO to express dissatisfaction about its handling of the ASB on 10 June 2021 but did not explain why it did not raise a complaint then. It offered the resident £450 compensation for its failure to follow its ASB procedure correctly.
  6. The resident informed this Service on 11 July 2022 that, although Mr A had since been removed from his property, she continued to be dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB. She relayed this was because her health had declined as a result of the ASB and she had been forced to live away from the property for a significant time. She wanted her rent arrears to be waived, compensation for her distress and inconvenience, and reimbursement for her expenses in living away from the property as she said this directly resulted from the landlord’s failure to tackle the ASB from Mr A.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour (Mr A)

  1. The tenancy agreement is the legal contract which defines the obligations under which each party is to abide by. It is a condition of tenancy that tenants are not to cause a nuisance or allow their visitors to cause a nuisance to others in the vicinity. Therefore, as it was evident that Mr A was the landlord’s tenant, he was obliged to comply with this.
  2. The landlord’s “Antisocial Behaviour – Housing and Support Policy” sets out that when a new case of ASB is reported, it must complete a vulnerability assessment to inform its plan for tackling the ASB and for providing support to the resident. This procedure states that it should assess the resident’s physical and mental health, their vulnerability to ASB due to their circumstances, and their vulnerability to repeated incidents of ASB. This procedure states that it will tailor its approach to dealing with ASB to meet the individual needs of the resident.
  3. The landlord acknowledged, in its final stage complaint response on 6 April 2022, that it failed to follow its ASB procedure in that it did not carry out a vulnerability assessment in response to the resident’s ASB reports. It awarded £450 compensation for this; however, this offer did not fully address the scale of the detriment to the resident.
  4. The landlord was aware from 10 August 2020 that the resident was receiving counselling and medication for her mental health, and it was aware from 11 September 2020 onwards that she was expecting a child. When she initially reported noise nuisance from Mr A on 4 March 2021, it would have therefore been particularly important for the landlord to complete a vulnerability and risk assessment to consider the potential impact of the ASB on her, in view of her circumstances. While the landlord’s records from 21 April 2021 set out that it was to arrange a weekly welfare call with the resident, carry out a risk assessment with her and create an action plan, there was no evidence that it took any of these actions. The impact of this lack of assessment was that it did not provide an appropriate level of support to the resident considering her circumstances.
  5. The resident’s initial reports of ASB logged by the landlord in March 2021 recorded that she was pregnant and that Mr A’s noise and conduct caused her distress. She also informed it on several occasions that she had resorted to staying with a neighbour, or relatives or in a hotel to avoid the ASB. The landlord’s internal records on 23 April and 25 August 2021 raised concerns over her ability to continue to pay rent while she paid for alternative accommodation. While the decision to live elsewhere was made by the resident of her own accord, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not consider that these decisions, coupled with her being pregnant, and later having a new-born in the property, indicated that she may require further support whilst it enacted its procedure to remove Mr A from his property. This was particularly unreasonable given the landlord’s internal concerns about the affordability of her rent.
  6. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that, while 100% of its properties are allocated by the local authority’s home choice service, there is provision for it to consider a managed move for a resident, dependent on their circumstances. It has confirmed that when approached by the local authority or a resident, it may carry out a management move in exceptional circumstances.
  7. The resident asked the landlord for alternative accommodation on 14 September, 15 November and 7 December 2021, and it was aware from at least 6 September 2021 onwards that she had supporting information from a health professional to support a move. There was evidence that the landlord contacted the local authority on 6 December 2021 to enquire on her behalf about a move, which was reasonable. However, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not consider whether the resident was eligible for a management move or discuss this with her. This was particularly unreasonable since it had not carried out a prior vulnerability assessment for the resident and it should have satisfied itself, whether through a management move application or otherwise, of whether or not her circumstances merited such a move.
  8. The landlord’s final stage complaint response declined to offer compensation to the resident for her costs in living elsewhere for various periods to avoid the ASB at home. It said that this was due to it considering that her home was “habitable, safe and secure”. While there was no evidence of the risk of direct physical harm to the resident, prolonged distress from exposure to noise disturbance and ASB must be considered a potential risk to mental health.
  9. While it is beyond the remit of this Service to assess whether any actions or lack of action by the landlord directly led to a decline in the resident’s health, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to pay due consideration to a resident’s reports of worsening mental or physical health as a result of experiencing ASB. Therefore, it should have considered this potential threat to mental health which was more significant when considered alongside the fact that the resident had a pre-existing mental health vulnerability which the landlord was aware of. Therefore, the landlord’s offer of compensation was unreasonable as it did not consider the full impact of its lack of support on the resident.
  10. While it was unreasonable for the landlord to assert that the property was “safe and secure” for the resident, it was reasonable that it declined to reimburse her costs for alternative accommodation. While the Ombudsman does not doubt that the resident experienced distress because of the ASB and felt compelled to stay elsewhere to avoid it, the choice of accommodation was her decision and there was no evidence that the landlord specifically instructed her to move out. Therefore, it would not be reasonable to hold the landlord responsible for these costs. However, further compensation should be paid to the resident to recognise its lack of consideration of her vulnerability to the ASB and its resultant lack of support which contributed to further distress for her.
  11. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) provides for awards of £600 to £1000 compensation where there has been a failure which led to a significant physical or emotional impact for the resident. Considering this, its compensation offer of £450 should be increased to £800 to recognise that there was likely a significant long-term emotional impact on the resident as a result of the landlord’s failure to follow its ASB procedure and failure to assess whether the resident could be offered a management move.

 

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s “Complaints – Housing Support Policy” defines a complaint as “An expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.” This mirrors the definition in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord’s CEO on 10 June 2021 to express her dissatisfaction with its handling of her reports of ASB, and the lack of support and contact she had received from its staff. While this email contained detail about the ASB she experienced, it also specified that its staff had been uncommunicative and had taken insufficient action to address the ASB. This was a clear expression of dissatisfaction about the landlord’s standard of service. It should therefore have recognised this as a complaint. Instead, the landlord directed the resident back to the same staff, whose actions, and lack of action, she was dissatisfied with. This was a failure by landlord to recognise the complaint and handle it appropriately, in line with its policy.
  3. While the resident’s email prompted the landlord to provide a response to her, on 25 June 2021, about its ongoing actions to address the ASB, landlords must differentiate between communication complaining about ASB and communication complaining about the handling of ASB. The latter should be treated as a complaint about its service, which is a chance for the landlord to assess the quality of its service provision and identify opportunities to improve.
  4. Registering the resident’s complaint would have provided an opportunity for the landlord to examine its response to the ASB and review whether it had acted in accordance with its policy and procedure. Instead, by directing the resident back to the staff she was dissatisfied with, it delayed the identification of its failings, which in turn delayed its assessment of her vulnerability to the ASB and the level of support she required. This was likely to have contributed to the resident’s distress while living with the ASB.
  5. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for awards of £100 to £600 where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident and where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right but has failed to address the full detriment to the resident. While the landlord offered the resident compensation to address the “overall impact” on her, it did not acknowledge its failure to raise a complaint at the first opportunity, prolonging the resident’s dissatisfaction. It only addressed her complaint after she sought the Ombudsman’s intervention on 24 January 2022.
  6. Therefore, compensation of £200 should be paid to the resident to recognise the intervening six months in which the landlord’s failure to consider her complaint likely led to further distress and inconvenience.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in:
    1. Its response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour.
    2. Its handling of the associated complaint

Orders

  1. Within four weeks, the landlord should confirm to this Service that it has complied with the following:
    1. Pay the resident £350 further compensation for its failures in the handling of ASB.
    2. Pay the resident £200 compensation for its complaint handling failure.

 Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident the £450 compensation it offered her in its final stage complaint response.
    2. Carry out refresher training with its complaints handling staff to ensure that complaints are recognised at the first opportunity and handled in compliance with its policy.
    3. Carry out refresher training with staff who deal with ASB to ensure that it responds to reports of ASB appropriately and in accordance with the relevant policies and procedures.