Catalyst Housing Limited (202014292)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014292

Catalyst Housing Limited

21 February 2023

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. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and threatening behaviour from a neighbour.
2. Complaint handling.
3. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a two‑bedroom flat on the first floor of a block.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will respond reports in line with its service standards; contact will be made with those reporting ASB within one working day. It adds that priority will be given to high risk (hate crime, domestic abuse, violence, risk of harm) or medium risk incidents.
The policy says the landlord will carry out an initial risk assessment when ASB cases are reported and review the assessment when necessary throughout the management of the case. It says that the landlord will not take action where, following investigation, there is insufficient evidence to take the case further. It adds that, where the main responsibility and power to deal with ASB lies with another service such as the police or the local authority, the landlord will support and work with them and its actions will be guided by their findings and outcomes.
The policy explains that the landlord will use a range of preventative measures, early intervention, and legal action to tackle ASB. That includes the full range of tools and powers available to it as outlined in the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014. It says that the methods used will be proportionate to the seriousness, impact and frequency of the behaviour, the level of risk that it poses to those affected and the evidence available to support the case.
The policy outlines the landlord’s service standards as follows:
1. It will respond to all reports of ASB by contacting the victims within one working day
2. It will agree an initial action plan with them.
3. It will agree an appropriate timescale with victims of ASB for keeping them informed of the progress of their case
4. It will contact all victims of ASB before considering closing their case.
The landlord’s ASB procedure says that action planning is an essential element of managing individual cases and engaging victims and witnesses. It says the landlord should create an action plan for cases that have a victim that is working with it to rectify an issue which will take time to resolve. The landlord is required to contact the victim to update them of the action they can expect it to take so that there is a clear path that both the landlord and the victim can follow. It adds that for all personal and high risk ASB the landlord should arrange a follow-up visit to finalise the action plan within one working day of receiving the original report. (Included in its definition of personal ASB are threats of violence, harassment or intimidation, verbal abuse and violence.)
The procedure says that, where there is an identifiable person responsible for the ASB, the landlord will need to try to interview them. This will allow it to develop its picture of the ASB and help it to decide what action to take. It also explains that harassment is generally a criminal offence and is the responsibility of the police; where appropriate to do so, it will take tenancy enforcement action against a perpetrator as a result of evidence obtained by the police or upon conviction.
The procedure also sets out the enforcement action available to the landlord. These include warning letters, acceptable behaviour agreements, mediation or temporary rehousing. It also includes legal remedies such as eviction or an injunction.
At the time of the events complained about the landlord had a two-stage complaints procedure. It said it aimed to resolve all complaints within ten working days. If it was unable to do so, it would progress the matter to stage one where it would give residents timescales of when they would receive a response. If the resident remained unhappy, the landlord could escalate the matter to stage two and it aimed to respond within ten working days.
In July 2020 the Ombudsman issued a new Complaint Handling Code which set out good practice that allows landlords to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The revised Housing Ombudsman Scheme allows the Ombudsman to issue a complaint handling failure order where a landlord is failing to comply with its membership obligations. Examples of when this may happen include failure to progress a complaint through the complaint procedure.

Summary of events

In investigating this complaint, emails from and notes of contact from the police were considered. We have not included details from this correspondence to protect the privacy of the residents in the neighbouring property. The landlord provided an account of its actions in this case; contemporaneous evidence was not provided. However, the following summary of events is not disputed.
On 3 June 2020 the resident reported an incident whereby the next-door neighbour’s partner (the perpetrator, who is not a tenant of the landlord) was speeding around the estate and, as he parked, the resident asked him to drive more slowly because children were playing outside. The resident said that he became verbally abusive and attacked her. The landlord noted that the police were involved and she was pressing charges against the perpetrator. It said it would support her in any way it could and would look into taking action from a tenancy perspective. The landlord opened an ASB case; the resident also reported drug taking/dealing.
On 4 June 2020, the landlord formulated an action plan for the resident including timescales for progressing the case.
On 22 June 2020 the police told the resident that it had spoken to the perpetrator under caution and, as a result of that interview, there were a couple of further enquires it needed to carry out before any decision could be made on the case.
On 1 July 2020 the ASB team noted contact from the police which had mooted taking action in this case. The landlord noted that if the police were to action this was “good news” because that would allow it to take enforcement action against the neighbour.
On 28 July 2020 the landlord tried to visit the resident, but there was no response.
In an internal email of 11 August 2020, the landlord also noted, “I can see an ASB case open but nothing has been done since 1st July.”
In an internal email of 11 August 2020, the landlord noted that the police were still investigating the neighbouring property. It noted it had assured the resident that it “would be taking action” on the back of this information; however, it could not disclose all this information to her for data protection reasons and would await the outcome from the police. The landlord also noted that, as the police took no further action in the resident’s case, the evidence to bring an injunction against the perpetrator might not be strong enough to do so.
On 13 August 2020 the landlord sent a written warning to the perpetrator.
On 19 August 2020, in response to an enquiry from the landlord, the police gave an update on its investigation.
On 30 September 2020 the landlord noted it had had a further update from the police. This Service has not seen a copy of that update.
On 19 October 2020 the landlord visited the resident at the property along with three other residents. They noted that they discussed the case with them and the action it planned to take. The landlord noted it had encouraged the residents to report issues to the police and it said that it might return to take statements from them at a later date (that was cancelled due to a lockdown).
On 19 November 2020 the landlord told the police that it was looking into an injunction to stop the perpetrator coming onto the street but would need evidence to do that.
On 8 February 2021 the landlord contacted the resident by email asking for a good time to call her to give an update. The resident responded asking for updates by email as she was home-schooling her children.
In a subsequent email to the resident the landlord said that, since their last conversation, there had been three main action points:
1. To liaise with the police re action they are taking against the perpetrator.
2. To speak with the ASB team regarding tenancy breaches of perpetrator.
3. To take statements to help with the injunction.
The landlord said that it had spoken to the police and they would not be prosecuting the neighbour, however they were on board with an exclusion zone if one could be obtained, such as including it in an injunction. It added it was investigating the perpetrator for non-ASB related tenancy breaches and would give the resident an update on this if it had progressed to an enforcement stage. It said it would look at obtaining a statement from the resident (to help with the injunction) when it was safe to do so but they were currently in lockdown. Lastly, it asked if the resident had made any further reports to the police.
On 12 February 2021 the resident sent an email to the landlord saying that there had been police banging on the neighbour’s door again. She said it was “outrageous that we are having to live like prisoners”.
On 17 February 2021 the landlord sent an email to the resident asking for a good time to call her to discuss her case. In response, she asked it to put anything in writing noting that it “just need to act now on removing (the perpetrator)”.
On 31 March 2021 the landlord received a complaint from the resident about the landlord’s handling of her report of ASB which came from her MP (the MP).
On 12 April 2021, following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint.
On 15 April 2021 the landlord responded to the MP. This Service has not seen a copy of that correspondence.
Following further contact from the resident, on 23 June 2021 this Service wrote to the landlord asking it to progress her complaint about threatening behaviour from the neighbouring property under its formal complaints procedure.
On 29 June 2021 the landlord issued a stage one response to the resident under its formal complaint procedure. The main points were:
1. It apologised for the length of time taken to respond.
2. It had liaised with the MP and the local authorities to establish an action plan by which it aimed to resolve any ongoing issues. It added that, unfortunately, local authorities had not fully supported it in acting against the alleged perpetrator, which meant it was limited in what actions it could take. It added that this did not mean it could not support the resident and her family.
3. Recent changes in government guidelines surrounding covid had prevented regular visits and inspections to the property. It apologised that the ASB officer had been unable to attend the property since October 2020.
4. It would continue to work with local authorities to resolve the matter and said it encouraged the resident to continue making any reports of ASB. It added that relevant action had been taken and it would continue to monitor the situation.
5. The neighbourhood experience officer would aim to keep consistent contact and records of any interactions the resident had; the ASB team would also conduct a site visit.
6. It recognised a service failing in that it had responded to the MP on 12 April 2021 but did not respond to the resident. It said it would learn from this to ensure it did not happen again. It apologised and offered £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures.
The landlord explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
On 26 July 2021 the resident told the landlord that there had been another incident that had left her children “terrified”. She provided a video of the incident. She said her children’s mental health was being “seriously impacted by this”. She said the perpetrator needed to be removed from the property urgently. The resident provided a copy of that video to this Service which showed the police taking a handcuffed male towards a police car.
On 19 August 2021, having had contact from the resident who said the landlord had not responded to her request for escalation, this Service asked the landlord to provide her with a stage two complaint response.
On 16 September 2021 the Ombudsman told the landlord that we would issue a Complaints Handling Failure Order if it did not issue a stage two complaint response to the resident within five working days.
On 20 September 2021 the resident told the landlord that the perpetrator had intimidated her teenage son and she had involved the police. The resident added that in 2018 the perpetrator had served a prison sentence for the same situation. She described the fear her and her sons were living with and that was having a detrimental effect on their mental health. She said she believed their lives were in danger.
On the same day the landlord told this Service that its complaint team was considering the resident’s complaint at stage two.
On 7 October 2021 the landlord told this Service that it should have issued a stage two response to the resident by 5 August 2021; however, this had not happened and it could not confirm that had been assigned to a member of the complaints team.
On 14 October 2021 the landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident. It set out the background to the complaint and how it approached ASB reports. The main points were:
1. In response to the resident’s request for an injunction against the perpetrator, it would be considered under enforcement and its policy in terms of enforcement action encourages residents to contact the police to report immediate risk of harm. It said that, although it was able to apply to the courts for an injunction, it was dependent on the support of the local police.
2. The resident told the landlord she had pressed charges against the perpetrator in June 2020, soon after the incident occurred. It explained that it would need to await the outcome of the police investigation in order to establish grounds for robust tenancy enforcement. The landlord added that, as the police were not able to pursue further action against the perpetrator, it was not able to obtain police statements to support an application to court for either an injunction or for eviction of the neighbours. The ASB case was subsequently closed.
3. It said it understood how distressing this ordeal might have been for the resident and her family. It said that it hoped the interventions provided by the ASB team had meant no there had been no further incidents between her and the neighbouring property.
4. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £250 as a gesture of good will (superseding the initial offer of £100) for the distress caused by it not delivering the standard of customer service that it expected.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
When she approached the Ombudsman, the resident said that she is scared that the perpetrator will kill her; she said the children were also terrified as they had witnessed the incident in June 2020 and suffered from anxiety. She said they stayed out to avoid spending time in the flat. She added, as a drug dealer, the perpetrator was nocturnal and the communal door was left open every night as the neighbour had lost their communal door key. She said this was not safe and that she and the children all slept in the same room with a padlock on the door for security. The outcome she was seeking was for the perpetrator to be evicted from the neighbour’s property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and threatening behaviour from a neighbouring property

It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB; our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against residents.
The evidence shows that the resident has made two reports to the landlord about the perpetrator, one in June 2020 (which is the focus of this complaint) and a second incident some fifteen months later when she said the perpetrator had intimidated her son. This report has focused on the assault that the resident reported in June 2020 as it was this incident that led to the complaint.
The alleged verbal and physical assault that the resident reported came under the “personal ASB” as defined in the landlord’s policy and procedures. Its initial actions were appropriate by opening an ASB case, offering support and agreeing to look into taking tenancy. The landlord also acted appropriately by carrying out a risk assessment, completing an action plan and sharing with the resident agreed timescales for keeping the resident informed of the progress of her case. This was in accordance with its ASB policy and procedure.
The action plan created by the landlord confirmed frequency of contact to be “every other week / when updates occur”. It further noted that diary sheets had been sent to the resident, it was awaiting further information from the police, confirmation that a warning letter was sent to the perpetrator and confirmed the risk rating completed as high.
Turning to its enforcement action, the landlord acted appropriately by sending a written warning to the perpetrator in August 2020 and meeting with the resident and neighbouring residents in October 2020 to gather information to support enforcement action. It is acknowledged that covid restrictions might have had an impact on the landlord’s ability to visit the resident in person.
Ultimately, the landlord decided that enforcement action was not appropriate. Taking into account the information given by the police and the police’s decision not to press charges against the perpetrator, it is very likely that an order for possession of the property would not have been successful. Likewise, an injunction against the neighbour’s partner which the evidence suggests is what the resident is seeking (keeping him away from the area), would also likely have been unsuccessful without police support. However, an order has been made, below, for the landlord to review the situation with the resident and the police to explore other options available within the landlord’s policies and procedures to help alleviate the situation which the resident says is ongoing.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
It is evident that there have been failings in the landlord’s communication with the resident during the case. The Ombudsman accepts that reasonable actions were taken by the landlord however in assessment of the action plan, the frequency of contact was agreed as “every other week / when updates occur”.
In assessment of the communications between the resident and landlord and the further evidence provided, although the Ombudsman accepts that there has been a line of communication with the resident, it is evident that this was not every other week or when updates occur. Furthermore, the Ombudsman agrees, that contact with the resident was sparse in the months after the resident had reported the incident to the landlord. This is supported by an internal email dated 11 August 2020 provided to the Ombudsman, in which it was confirmed, “I can see an ASB case open but nothing has been done since 1st July.” The Ombudsman has acknowledged that a visit was attempted on 28 July 2020 however, in this instance, considering the nature of the resident’s concerns, and the risk confirmed as high, a more frequent line of communication would have been expected in the circumstances. Financial compensation of £100 is appropriate for the impact that lack of contact had on the resident.
It is evident that the incident in June 2020 has caused – and continues to cause – the resident and her family great distress. She told this Service that the perpetrator is still living in the neighbouring property and she believes her life is in danger. An order has been made below for the landlord to offer support and practical measures to the resident to make her and her family feel more secure in the property, for example, by taking steps to ensure the communal door is locked at night and all residents have keys to the communal door; considering enhanced security measures for the property and giving her information about how it will respond to any future reports of ASB about the perpetrator.

Complaint handling

The landlord has acknowledged failings in its complaint-handling:
1. Responding to the MP and not the resident in April 2021.
2. The length of time to respond at stage one of its complaints procedure.
3. The delay in issuing the stage two response.
The landlord apologised that it did not offer the level of customer service it should have done. In the final complaint response, the landlord offered £250 to the resident for the distress and inconvenience those failings had caused her. The Ombudsman considers that this offer of compensation order was proportionate to the impact on the resident. This amount is also within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of considerable maladministration; this includes cases where there have been failings by the landlord in its complaint handling.

The landlord’s record keeping

The Ombudsman has concerns surrounding the record keeping of the landlord, namely that important evidence was not provided upon the Ombudsman’s initial information request dated 2 March 2022. Taking the above into consideration, the landlord’s record keeping is either inadequate or all documentation, contact notes, correspondence, internal emails or call records relating to the landlord’s handling of the complaint was not provided to the Ombudsman as requested. This has since been provided, but the Ombudsman has also ensured that the resident has not been unduly impacted by the landlord’s failure here.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact and evidence relating to each casefile, yet the evidence provided by it has not been comprehensive in the initial investigation of the case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail and also provide this to the Ombudsman upon request.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and threatening behaviour from a neighbouring property.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint with respect to its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

While the enforcement decisions taken by the landlord with regard to the perpetrator were reasonable, and it adhered to follow its ASB procedures properly, contact with the resident was sparse in in the months after she had reported the incident to the landlord. Thus, considering the nature of the resident’s concerns, and the risk confirmed as high, a more frequent line of communication would have been expected in this circumstance.
The landlord recognised that it had not offered the service it should have done in relation to its complaint handling. The landlord offered proportionate redress to reflect the impact this had on the resident.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact and evidence relating to each casefile, providing this to the Ombudsman on initial request, to ensure that any decision is based on accurate evidence, however the landlord only did so at a later stage.

Orders

The landlord is ordered, within four weeks of the date of this report, providing evidence of compliance with these orders to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failing identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £100 for the inadequate contact and the impact on her and her children.
3. Pay the resident £100 for the failings with its record keeping.
4. Review its record keeping practices to ensure that robust records are kept, and evidence requests from the Ombudsman are fulfilled in line with the landlord’s obligations as set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme
5. To correspond with the resident and police:
  1. Review the situation to explore other enforcement options available (within the landlord’s policies and procedures).
  2. Offer support and practical measures to the resident to make her and her family feel more secure in the property, for example, by taking steps to ensure the communal door is locked at night and all residents have keys to the communal door; considering enhanced security measures for the property and giving her information about how it will respond to any future reports of ASB about the perpetrator.
  3. Following that meeting, write to the resident and the Ombudsman with any changes to the current action plan.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the compensation of £250 it offered for its complaint handling failures (if it has not done so already).