Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202110562)

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

Sovereign Housing Association

202110562

26 May 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

This is about the landlords handling of:
1. Antisocial behaviour reports and an associated transfer offer.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident held an assured tenancy which started on 28 November 2011. The property was a two-bedroom house with a garden. She lived at the property with her ten year old son.
The landlord was aware that the resident had been a victim of domestic abuse prior to 2021 and she had a current mental health illness.

Antisocial behaviour policy

The landlord has an antisocial behaviour policy which says:
1. that tackling anti-social behaviour affecting its residents is a priority and it will make sure it understands the impact of each incident on the victim and will consider how it makes them feel.
2. It says that its approach will vary for each case and will be tailored to the needs of the residents involved. Depending on the case circumstances it would:
  1. Take the time to meet everyone involved.
  2. Understand each person’s views.
  3. Advise residents on how they could change their behaviour to improve their relationships.

Complaints Policy

The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will seek to resolve complaints as quickly as it can. When it first receives a complaint, it aims to agree a solution with the customer within ten workings days. If this is not possible (for example, if the complaint is complicated) it may require a further ten days.

Transfers Policy

The landlord has a transfer policy that helps it maximise the use of its properties and gives its residents options to move to other properties owned by the landlord.

Lettings Policy

The landlord’s lettings policy says it will allocate its properties by bedroom need to make the best use of its housing stock. It says that it would allocate a two-bedroom property to an applicant with one child.

Injunction Proceedings

The Housing Ombudsman scheme 41.c states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints that were the subject of Court proceedings. This investigation therefore does not consider the actions taken by the Landlord to begin injunction proceedings or the decisions made by the Courts as part of these proceedings.

Summary of events

On 1 July 2020, the landlord received a report from the resident that her neighbour was behaving antisocially by:
1. Calling the Police on her for having a cigarette in the garden.
2. Cutting the wires of the solar lights that she had put up on the garden boundary fence.
On 7 July 2020 the resident had reported that the neighbour and their relative had made threats directly to her whilst she was on her doorstep. After this the resident had watched as the neighbour deliberately damaged her car. This was reported to the police.
On 3 August 2020, the landlord obtained an interim injunction order against the resident for threats to use violence against and harassment of neighbours. There was a power of arrest attached to this order. A hearing was set for 14 August 2020. On this date the resident attended the Court, and she was invited to file a defence before 14 September 2020. The case was adjourned with the power of arrest still in place until the first available date after 21 September 2020.
On 21 November 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that the neighbour had recorded her property deliberately.
On 3 December 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord summarising incidents caused by the neighbour that had occurred since July 2020. She said that despite her making reports she did not know of any actions the landlord had taken about incidents that affected her. However, complaints made about her, which the resident said were caused by neighbours ganging up on her maliciously resulted in her being subject to an injunction. The incidents the resident reported included:
1. Being shouted at and having spurious allegations made about her.
2. Verbal abuse from the neighbour over attaching solar lights to the boundary fence after which her solar lights were deliberately damaged.
3. Criminal damage to her car. The resident told the landlord that the police were taking statements and the resident hoped that issue would be resolved soon.
4. The neighbour’s relative had made a threat to kill the resident.
5. Due to the landlord’s interim injunction, she had been arrested and spent an evening in custody, this was following a malicious allegation made by the neighbour.
6. Separate tothe reports about the neighbour’s behaviour, the resident shared with the landlord she had been a recent victim of domestic abuse from a partner who had been at the property.
On 18 December 2020, after a Court direction hearing the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that there was no longer a power of arrest attached to her interim injunction. It explained that this meant it would decide on what actions to take if there were any alleged tenancy breaches. A full hearing on the case was due after 31 January 2021.
On 15 January 2021, the landlord emailed the resident. It said that it had received a complaint about cannabis smoking at the property. It advised that if it evidenced that this was occurring it would take legal action.
On 29 January 2021, the landlord became concerned as the resident had not turned up for a multiagency professionals meeting and had not answered phone calls. A welfare visit was made to the resident. The resident said to the visiting officer that her mental health had “not been good”. A reason disclosed was that that the resident was having some financial difficulties, she had a variety of debts which included a debt with the landlord for which legal proceedings had been taken and as a result there was a suspended possession order. As part of this meeting the resident was told that the landlord would abandon the injunction proceedings.
On 29 January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to complain. She said that she had been targeted by other residents who had written false statements about her which caused the landlord to obtain an interim injunction order. She wanted the landlord to apologise and to make sure it changed its policies so that it never took someone to court without getting both sides.
On 1 February 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm the outcome of the welfare visit. The landlord confirmed arrangements it was making to support the resident with debt problems. A referral had been made for the landlord’s tenancy support advisor team to assist the resident and an arrangement had been made for the resident to receive a food parcel.
On 19 February 2021, a manager sent an email to the resident to confirm the arrears that the resident had and encouraged the resident to engage with citizens advice about her debts. The resident replied to the landlord to thank it for its response to her complaint. She said that ASB officers should never take people to court without knowing their circumstances. In following correspondence, the landlord confirmed that the email it had sent was not in response to any complaint and queried when the complaint was made and to who it had been made. In reply, the resident said that she had made a complaint about the hate from the neighbours the main one had since moved.
On 1 March 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident after receiving a report of strong cannabis smells at the property affecting the neighbours. The resident contacted the landlord and denied responsibility.
On 14 March 2021, the landlord was informed by the police that the resident had been arrested on a drug driving charge and that there was also a machete in the car when she was stopped.
On 19 March 2021, the landlord received a report from a neighbour that the resident had three people turn up at her property for three days in a row all of whom only stayed a short space of time.
On 7 April 2021, the resident was arrested on a drug driving charge and was tested positive for cannabis and cocaine.
On 13 April 2021, during a multiagency meeting with the landlord and resident present, the resident advised that she did smoke cannabis at home as it helped her sleep and be less anxious.
On 20 April 2021, the landlord received a call from the resident who reported her neighbour having four cars parked in the allocated spaces. There was no room for visitors or anyone else to park.
On 23 April 2021, the landlord attended a multiagency meeting to discuss the resident’s situation and a safeguarding concern for her son. At the meeting the landlord informed the resident that it would be applying to add antisocial behaviour grounds to the resident’s suspended possession order which was already in place. This was due to admitted cannabis use in the property and two arrests for cannabis and cocaine. The resident was told a warrant would be applied for, which if granted could make her and her son homeless. The resident swore at the meeting attendees and disputed that she was driving under the influence.
On 4 May 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident about drug related activity and potential legal proceedings. The reason for this was that the resident had been stopped by the police twice whilst driving and been found under the influence of cannabis, cocaine and in possession of a machete. The landlord considered this to be a criminal offense in the vicinity of the property and advised it would act depending on the outcome of these criminal proceedings. The resident was at this point subject to a suspended possession order for rent arrears. The landlord explained that if she was charged it would apply to add antisocial behaviour to the existing suspended order. The resident obtained payment for her outstanding rent in June 2021 which cleared her account of arrears which ended the proceedings which the landlord had said it would rely on. Following this, the landlord considered serving the resident with a new notice of seeking possession using antisocial behaviour as the main ground for possession.
On 4 May 2021, the landlord received a telephone call from the resident who reported that a neighbour had five cars parked in all the allocated spaces. The resident asked for the complaints team as no one had called her back.
On 27 May 2021, the landlord received a report that the resident’s property smelt strongly of cannabis.
On 12 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord by phone to complain that the neighbours were harassing her by collaborating against her.
On 13 August 2021, the landlord was informed by a social worker that the resident was 10 weeks pregnant.
Following this the landlord contacted the resident and organised to meet with her on 18 August 2021. At the meeting the resident reported feeling let down by the landlord and that it had not listened to her side of the story. When it considered the history of the case the landlord agreed that at times it had failed to respond to the resident’s complaints about her neighbours and it apologised for the stress and anxiety caused. It agreed that:
1. The resident would register on the local authority’s housing register and provide evidence for a move on social and medical grounds.
2. It would not be serving the resident with a notice seeking possession.
3. Due to the antisocial behaviour issues the resident wanted a fresh start. The landlord agreed it would seek to obtain a high priority band one on its own internal transfer register.
4. The resident would provide evidence of harassment from her neighbours and the landlord would then investigate.
5. The antisocial behaviour case against the resident was to be closed.
6. The landlord inspected the neighbour’s CCTV and identified no issues.
7. An apology was made for distress caused by previous antisocial behaviour investigations and court actions.
On 27 August 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm the outcome of a recent meeting. This response was considered by the landlord to be a stage one reply.
1. It apologised that the antisocial behaviour officer had not updated the resident following her complaint in December 2020 or advised her that she was no longer looking after the resident’s case.
2. It had found learning from how it managed the resident’s case. This included:
  1. improvements needed in record keeping.
  2. updating all parties involved when there are case updates.
  3. introductions from case officers
3. A banding form would be completed to add the resident to the landlord’s internal transfer list.
4. Encouraged the resident to report issues with the neighbours as they occurred.
On 7 September 2021, the resident emailed the landlord. She said that she felt that any complaint made about her resulted in a phone call from the landlord. In contrast the resident said she never received any updates about action taken following her complaints about her neighbours.
On 7 September 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s email and advised the complaint would go to state two of its formal complaints process. It sent a copy of its complaints policy.
During September 2021, the landlord and the resident communicated over obtaining evidence for a band one award for an internal transfer. Reports were obtained from a midwife, GP, and a community mental health nurse.
On 24 September 2021, during an internal email exchange a move to a three-bedroom property was agreed. The landlord then emailed the resident to confirm that it would be looking for three-bedroom properties.
On 27 September 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm the outcome of a previous call.
1. It provided advice on applying to the local authority’s housing register. It confirmed it had sent information for an urgent move request to the local authority.
2. It confirmed the way that its internal transfer priority banding system worked. She would be offered properties that were due to become empty. The team that lets properties would identify suitable properties which would then be offered to the resident.
On 27 September 2021, the landlord sent its stage two review of the resident’s complaint.
1. It acknowledged its service failure during the antisocial behaviour case. It made an offer of redress which included:
  1. £325 written off court costs.
  2. A band one internal transfer move priority for a two-bedroom property.
  3. £250 gesture of goodwill.
  4. A referral to womankind. (Domestic abuse support)
  5. A referral to the landlord’s tenancy support advisors.
2. The landlord would not compensate for the criminal damage to the resident’s vehicle because this was outside of its remit.
On 30 September 2021, in an email exchange with the resident the landlord apologised for an error in offering a three-bedroom property.
The resident left the property and the tenancy ended in May 2022. She has told this service that after staying with family she was rehoused with another landlord via the local authority’s housing register in 2023.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from the outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure.

Antisocial behaviour reports.

On 3 December 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to explain that she had been put in a difficult position due to the landlords interim injunction, after being arrested following an allegation from a neighbour that the resident said had been made maliciously. The landlord considered the impact of its proceedings on the resident and acts by having the power of arrest removed at a Court direction hearing on 18 December 2020. Later, in January 2021 the landlord abandons the injunction proceedings, notifying the resident of this on 31 January 2021. By taking these actions that landlord demonstrated that it reviewed the proceedings and considered how it was managing the antisocial behaviour case, updating its position as appropriate.
After the landlord’s welfare visit on 29 January 2021 and in response to the resident’s circumstances including disclosed mental health difficulties, pressures from debt and being a domestic abuse survivor, the landlord behaved reasonably by promptly making a referral to its internal tenancy support service and signposting the resident to other appropriate support services for debt advice.
The landlord received reports of cannabis smells at the resident’s property in March 2021. It was appropriate for the landlord to consider this report to be antisocial as the tenancy agreements states under section 4.4 that the resident would not “not cause nuisance or cause disturbance or annoyance” an example of nuisance, annoyance or disturbance includes “taking or receiving illegal drugs”. It began by issuing appropriate written warnings and notifying the resident of ways to change her behaviours to avoid future reports. It was necessary and reasonable for the landlord to put the reports to the resident and give advice on how she could avoid attracting further complaints and / or avoid the landlord needing to take legal action due to antisocial behaviour.
The landlord’s records show limited reports of the resident causing issues at her property that directly impacted the neighbours. There are two reports in March 2021, one of visitors staying for short periods of time during the course of a three day period and another single report of cannabis smells. The landlord has not demonstrated it collected evidence in the form of incident diaries or regular contact with neighbours to assess a persistent nuisance at the resident’s property. On 4 May 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to explain that it would rely on police information regarding a drug driving traffic stop to justify legal action against the tenancy in the form of either adding grounds to already existing arrears proceedings or, when the arrears were cleared in June 2021, serving a new notice seeking possession solely on antisocial behaviour grounds. It was made clear to the resident in this letter and a multiagency meeting that these actions could result in her and her son being made homeless.
Whilst a multiagency approach to managing community issues is important, the main behaviour being relied on in the landlord’s threat of escalation to legal proceedings was that of a driving offense which took place in the locality of the property. This is a tenuous link to the landlords antisocial behaviour investigation as it did not directly impact the neighbours or the property. Therefore the landlord’s threat of legal proceedings and homelessness at this stage was not proportionate and caused the resident distress.
The landlord had received complaints from the resident about a neighbour’s parking on 20 April 2021 and 4 May 2021. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to these calls until it visited the resident in relation to reports of her smoking cannabis on 18 August 2021. By not responding to the resident it failed to provide an appropriate standard of customer service and thisis a failing by the landlord.
The landlord followed its antisocial behaviour policy by meeting with the resident to discuss the ongoing issues in this case on 18 August 2021. During this meeting, the resident raised issues with the landlords handling of antisocial behaviour complaints about her and how her own complaints went without a response. The landlord adopted a conciliatory and apologetic tone in its communications from this point and its focus becomes that of supporting the resident to access appropriate support services and providing direct assistance with her transfer application. This shift in its position from punitive legal action to a more supportive approach was an appropriate step to take in light of the new information received on 13 August 2021, that the resident was pregnant and as part of its review of how it had managed the residents antisocial behaviour case.
In its formal complaint’s procedure, the landlord identified service failings in how it managed the antisocial behaviour case. Whilst the landlord does not specify what these failings are it does find several learning points for its antisocial behaviour case management generally and offered a redress through learning, service provision and compensation. This consisted of:
1. £250 as a goodwill gesture. Whilst the landlords response does not specify what this was for, it demonstrates some consideration for the distress that had occurred as a result of the failings it had identified.
2. Removal of the Injunction’s £325 Court costs.
3. Learning from the case to improve its ASB case handling communication.
4. Support for a band one moving priority within its stock and in getting a priority move with the local authority.
5. It had referred the resident to its tenancy support service.
6. Referring the resident to a domestic abuse support service.
7. Encouraging the resident to report any future harassment.
Whilst the resident did report the neighbour’s occupying car parking spaces, this service has seen no evidence that the resident reported being harassed by the neighbour in the period from January 2021 until the final response complaint letter dated 27 September 2021.
The resident’s circumstances of her rehousing application in September 2021 were that she had a ten year old son and she was pregnant. The landlord offered appropriate support in assisting the resident collect relevant supporting evidence from GPs and a midwife to supports its own information supporting the residents need to move. The landlord has demonstrated it kept in regular contact with the resident, gave her advice and put together her application to assist with her getting the highest possible banding via both the local authority’s housing register and for its own internal transfers.
As per the local authority’s housing allocations scheme, which says that a pregnant applicant with one child would be given a two-bedroom need, it was also reasonable for the landlord to assess the resident’s housing need as two bedroom and therefore offer a like for like transfer from her existing two-bedroom home. It is recognised that on 24 September 2021 the landlord advised the resident that it would look for a three-bedroom home, however, prior to this point there was no indication that the landlord was seeking to transfer the resident to a larger property. When it realised the error on 30 September 2021 it apologised and explained that it could only offer two-bedroom homes appropriately.

The associated complaint

The resident first made her complaint by email to the landlord on 29 January 2021. She said that she wanted the landlord to apologise and make sure that it did not take someone to court again before it had considered everyone involved. There was communication between a manager and the resident on 19 February 2021, when, the resident believed that an email received from a manager was a complaint response. In the following correspondence the resident clarified that she had made a complaint however did not make it clear whether she was referencing the email dated 29 January 2021 or her complaints about her neighbour during 2020. Either way, it was not made clear to the landlord that the emailed complaint dated 29 January 2021 had not received a response. The landlord had failed to recognise the residents complaint and therefore did not respond to it in line with its complaints policy which says it would deal with complaints “as quickly as it can” and that it “aims to agree a solution with the resident in ten workings days”.
Following the resident’s contact on 4 May 2021, where she asked to speak to the complaints team about not receiving call backs there is no evidence of the landlord acknowledging the complaint and beginning its complaints process. The first evidence that the landlord responded to a complaint made by the resident is on 18 August 2021 when a manager visited her and discussed her concerns about how her case had been handled. The landlord did not provide a written response to the resident’s complaint until 27 August 2021, more than six months after her email dated 29 January 2021 about the same issues.
In addition, Section 5.8 of the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code says that landlords must make it clear to the resident what stage the complaint is at and how to escalate to the next stage in the process. The email sent by the landlord dated 27 August 2021 fails to identify itself as a complaint response or offer the resident access to the complaints process escalation. It is only when the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with this reply on 7 September 2021 that the landlord formally acknowledged the complaint, sent the resident its complaints policy and confirmed that it was on stage two of its process. The landlord does not acknowledge or apologise for any delays in its investigation at either stage in its complaint handling. This is a failing by the landlord to handle its complaints in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code and its own policy.
Using the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends awards above £250 for significant failures to follow complaint procedure, an appropriate remedy will be ordered.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlords handling of the resident’s anti-social behaviour reports and associated transfer request.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord offered compensation, identified learning, reviewed its case handling, made a decision not to pursue legal action and provided support to the resident with her moving options.
In its delays to respond to the residents complaint dated 29 January 2021 the landlord did not follow its complaints policy or the Ombudsman’s code.

Orders

It is ordered that the landlord pays the resident £250 for its complaint handling delays. This should be paid within the next four weeks. This should not be used to offset rent arrears or other debts and should be paid directly to the resident.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so the landlord should pay the £250 goodwill gesture already offered at the landlord’s stage two response for how the antisocial behaviour case had been handled.