Onward Homes Limited (202204981)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204981

Onward Homes Limited

28 April 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

1. The complaint is about:

1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from neighbours.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident, who is an assured tenant, contacted the landlord in April 2020 in order to report ASB incidents from his neighbours. The ASB included reports of fighting outside, loud noises and banging in the neighbour’s property throughout all hours of the day and night. Also, aggression and violence to the resident. An ASB investigation was opened by the landlord in which it encouraged the resident to download and use a noise app, keep an ASB diary, and to continue reporting any serious incidents to the police. A letter from the landlord to the resident on 7 October 2020 confirmed that matters had been resolved, and the ASB case was closed in December 2020.
3. In April 2021, the resident reported further ASB incidents. The incidents were much of the same (violence, loud noises and arguing), and as such, the resident advised that it was affecting his wellbeing. The resident also made several entries into the noise app. The landlord issued the neighbour with a letter that warned of a breach of tenancy. The landlord also advised the resident that should the neighbour breach this, further action would be taken.
4. On 5 August 2021, the case was referred to mediation. The resident advised the landlord on 20 August 2021, that the situation had improved massively. However, in early September 2021, the situation deteriorated. On 22 October 2021, the landlord closed the ASB case as it felt that the situation had improved. However, the landlord did not inform the resident of this. As such, the resident continued to use the noise app and to send emails to the landlord, without response.
5. On 3 January 2022, the resident submitted a formal complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the ASB issue. However, the complaint was not acknowledged. The resident chased this with an email, again the email was not acknowledged. As such, the resident’s complaint was not progressed through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP), and it was not formally investigated.
6. The resident submitted a further formal complaint on 12 June 2022, in which he raised concerns that a formal warning letter had been given to his neighbour, yet nothing further had happened. He also expressed concerns that the case had been closed without informing him, and only briefly speaking to him during the investigation. Additionally, he explained that he had sent a significant amount of emails without receiving a response, as well as the fact that his initial complaint had gone without response.
7. The landlord’s final response (19 August 2022) acknowledged that it had not provided the right level of service to the resident during its investigation into the ASB cases. Whilst it felt that the first ASB case had been dealt with in line with its policies, it admitted that during the second case, it did not keep the resident fully updated. Additionally, it admitted that it should have acted sooner, and that it should have completed an action plan with the resident, as well as keeping him informed throughout the investigation. The landlord also acknowledged that it had failed to respond to the resident’s initial complaint.
8. Finally, the landlord noted in its final response that a new ASB case had been opened in March 2022, and that it was still under investigation at that time. It had carried out door to door knocks with other residents to attempt to generate witness statements, however the case was an ongoing police investigation. Once the criminal case had ended, it would consider taking its own legal action.
9. The landlord offered the resident a total of £450 compensation. This was broken down as: £200 for how it handled the ASB investigation (£150 for delays in taking appropriate action, and gaps in liaising with the resident during the investigation, and £50 for gaps in its record keeping during the ASB case). The remaining £250 was in recognition of its complaint handling failures (£150 for the failure to acknowledge the resident’s stage one complaint, and £100 for delays in responding and acknowledging the stage one and two complaints).
10. The resident did not dispute the landlord’s final response and was satisfied with the landlord’s findings. However, the resident was not satisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord. The resident advised this Service that he wanted a total of £3326. This was broken down as: £1600 for four months’ rent for the period that the resident and his wife were forced to leave the property, £800 for rent and expenses whilst himself and his wife stayed at their parents’ properties during this time, £400 for time off work, £256 for transport expenses whilst staying away from home, and £270 for abandoned driving lesson as a result of not being in the area during the time that he had to move out.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

11. The landlord’s remedies and financial redress guidance suggests that “where service failure causes a medium impact to the customer, an amount of between £150 to £700 will be considered”.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from neighbours.

12. When allegations of ASB are made to the landlord, its obligation was to investigate the ASB in line with its policies and procedures, and to ensure that a full, thorough, and well communicated investigation had been completed.
13. The landlord has acknowledged in its final response, that there were failings in how it had investigated the resident’s concerns, particularly in how it had failed to be transparent with the resident and to keep him informed. Additionally, there was no dispute by the resident regarding the landlord’s findings, apart from the level of compensation offered. As such, given that the landlord had acknowledged its failings, it is the purpose of this investigation to determine whether the compensation offered was fair and reasonable.
14. The resident did not dispute the landlord’s finding that it had investigated the first ASB case appropriately. The landlord asked the resident to make a diary, and to submit audio recordings onto a noise app. These are both things that a landlord would usually be expected to request during the initial stages of an ASB investigation.
15. It is clear from the evidence provided that the ASB case was appropriately closed as the resident had followed the information provided by the landlord and indicated that the situation had improved. Additionally, following the closure of the ASB case, there was no dispute from the resident that suggested he was unhappy with this. As such, it was appropriate for the landlord to not offer any compensation for this stage of the ASB investigation.
16. However, the landlord did acknowledge that during the second investigation that began in April 2021, it did not keep the resident adequately informed and updated. This is a failure to manage the resident’s expectations.
17. Managing expectations is an important of the landlord’s service delivery. Not only is it beneficial to inform the resident of progress being made, but it ensures the resident that the landlord is taking the complaint seriously, and that it is active in seeking a resolution. Failure to do so can potentially convey the feeling that the appropriate steps were not being taken, even if they were.
18. Additionally, the landlord acknowledged that there were delays, and often failures to respond to the resident’s submissions on the noise app. Failure to do so is a failure to communicate effectively with the resident. Much like managing expectations, ensuring regular and consistent communication with the resident is key to maintaining a positive landlord/tenant relationship.
19. It is clear that in this particular case, failure to communicate effectively caused the resident not only frustration, but unnecessary involvement, due to having to chase responses consistently. With this in mind, it would be appropriate for the landlord to offer additional compensation in recognition of the frustration and additional time and trouble caused, by its failure to properly communicate with the resident.
20. It is also important to consider that not only were there communication issues between the landlord and the resident, but there were internal communication issues also. As noted in its final response, the resident’s first formal complaint went unnoticed as it had been sent through to the wrong department.
21. At this point, its operational processes should have identified the error and arranged for it to be transferred to the relevant department. Had there have been clear lines of communication between the landlord’s internal departments, this could have been avoided. Therefore, it is recommended that the landlord reviews its internal communication procedures so as to ensure that errors such as these are prevented in future complaints.
22. The landlord also acknowledged that there was a failure to act sooner in terms of progressing the ASB investigation. For example, it was acknowledged that mediation between the two parties could have been initiated sooner.
23. As well as acknowledging this, the landlord offered £150 in recognition of this failing, which according to this Service’s remedies guidance, is an appropriate amount to consider for instances in which there was service failure that significantly affected the resident.
24. However, the root cause of the failure to act sooner and progress the investigation in a structured manner, was the landlord’s failure to implement an action plan with the resident. The landlord advised that this would have been in line with its policies and procedures. The landlord’s failure to do this was a failure to manage the ASB case as a whole, and had it done so, issues such as the failure to progress things sooner, and failure to communicate would have potentially been avoided. Therefore, further compensation should be awarded for its failure to appropriately manage the situation.
25. It is clear that there were several service failures throughout the landlord’s handling of the ASB investigation, and how it had communicated with the resident. Given the significant failings, it was positive that the landlord acknowledged them in its final response and made efforts to remedy its failings in the form of compensation. However, whilst the sum of compensation offered in recognition of the failings during its ASB investigations (£200) was in line with its own remedies guidance, it is the opinion of this Service that the compensation offered was not fairly representative of the maladministration that resulted from the collective service failures, and that financial compensation has not been awarded for certain failures that would warrant it.
26. As such, the landlord should provide an additional £300. This can be broken down to £150 for its communication failures, both internal and external, and a further £150 for its failure to set out an action plan and manage the overall situation.

Complaint handling

27. The landlord acknowledged that the resident’s formal complaint on 3 January 2022 was not answered and was not treated and investigated as a formal complaint. Additionally, it acknowledged that there had been delays in acknowledging and responding to further complaints that were made.
28. It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it sticks to deadlines and timeframes given to the resident. Failure to do so is unfair to the resident and denies the opportunity to have an investigation.
29. The landlord advised that the initial complaint on 3 January 2022 was sent through to the wrong department. Whilst this Service understands that on occasion, accidents like this may happen, it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that there are procedures in place for such incidents, and that the complaints of resident’s are not left unanswered.
30. The landlord acknowledged its failing and offered the resident £150 in recognition of this. This was in line with its own policies and procedures, and also in line with this Service’s remedies guidance. It was also appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for it in its final response.
31. It was also appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation for the late stage one response (it took 13 working days instead of the ten advised by the landlord). In recognition of this, the landlord offered £50. This was appropriate due to the short nature of the delay, and the minimal detriment caused to the resident. The same can also be said for the £50 offered to the resident, in recognition of the delay in acknowledging the resident’s stage two escalation request. Whilst undoubtedly frustrating for the resident, the effect of this was minimal and short of duration, as such, this offer of compensation was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.
32. Therefore, it is the opinion of this Service that the £250 offered by the resident in recognition of its complaint handling failures, was reasonable redress by the landlord, and no further compensation is warranted.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from neighbours.
34. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in regard to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

35. The landlord is ordered to pay an additional £300 compensation along with the £450 already offered. This brings the total amount of compensation to be paid to the resident, as £750. This is to be paid within four weeks of the date of this investigation.

Recommendations

36. It is recommended that the landlord conducts a review of its internal and external communication processes, to ensure that complaints and correspondence are unanswered within its published timeframes.
37. The landlord should carry out a self-assessment against the recommendations made in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on noise complaints – Time to be heard (2022) and provide a copy to this Service.