Sanctuary Housing Association (202204755)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204755

Sanctuary Housing Association

15 August 2023 (amended at review)

 

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 the landlord’s:
  1. record keeping and communication regarding tree works in the communal area;
  2. handling of concerns about the resident’s behaviour and its subsequent apology, and;
  3. complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, under a shared ownership scheme.
  2. The landlord had authorised the removal of three trees on the estate after receiving complaints from other residents that the trees were causing interference with their satellite reception. The works were due to be carried out on 24 June 2021.
  3. When the contractors attended, the resident disputed that the trees needed to be felled and was concerned that they had not been consulted about this. Due to the dispute the contractors left the trees in place and trimmed them instead, pending any further information from the landlord.
  4. The resident complained to their landlord on 24 June 2021. Their complaint was about the lack of consultation and a lack information from the landlord regarding the tree works. This was not recorded as a complaint until the 7 February 2022, despite various communications between the resident and members of staff between these dates.
  5. On 8 July 2021 the resident received a phone call from the landlord. During this phone call, the landlord stated that it had no knowledge of the resident’s written complaint and advised the resident that there had been an allegation of antisocial behaviour (ASB) made against them, which it was calling to investigate. The resident disputed these allegations and added this issue to their formal complaint. They asked for evidence of the allegations and for them to be put in writing. The resident stated that they were very distressed about the allegations.
  6. The landlord provided a stage one response on 8 February 2022, partially upholding the complaint. The resident subsequently  escalated their complaint regarding both the miscommunication with the tree works and the way the allegations against them had been handled. The resident requested that these issues be investigated and a full apology and retraction provided.
  7. The landlord responded to the complaint on 16 May 2022. The landlord acknowledged failings with its communication and record keeping regarding the tree works, failings with its complaint handling, and failings with its communication to the resident in line with its own ASB policy. The landlord issued an apology for its failings and offered the resident a total of £500 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience the failings had caused.
  8. The resident approached this Service in September 2022. Their outstanding complaints are the landlord’s communication regarding tree works, the allegation of ASB, and the landlord’s complaint handling. They would like the allegation of ASB to be retracted and removed from their records, and a sincere apology. They would also like financial compensation for distress, and time and trouble.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. In their complaints the resident mentions previous and ongoing incidents with one of their neighbours, who he advises had made ‘vexatious complaints’ about them, dating back to 2013. Paragraph 42 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that this Service may not investigate complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. In line with this, this investigation focuses on matters relating to the June 2021 incident only.
  2. The resident also mentions that there have been more recent ‘vexatious complaints’ about them by the same neighbour. Whilst this Service understands this may be distressing for the resident, it cannot investigate this matter as there is no indication that the resident has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process in this regard. The resident has also referred to other matters and concerns that have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process, and so are not included in this report. This is in line with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
  3. Finally, the resident has raised a very large number of concerns and complaints about the actions of the landlord in relation to the June 2021 incident and its response to their concerns. While the Ombudsman acknowledges these, this investigation will not address each of these individually, as it would not be proportionate to do so. Rather, the investigation will assess the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s concerns.

Dispute Resolution Principles

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
  1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
  1. put things right, and;
  2. learn from outcomes.
  1. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse affect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse affect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Communication regarding tree works

  1. In its complaint response, the landlord has fully acknowledged that there were service failures in its internal communication regarding the tree works, and that it had failed to check specific details when granting approval for these. The landlord has also fully acknowledged and apologised to the resident for the lack of consultation and advised this was due to the contractors having a cancellation and wanting to expedite the matter, with no information passed on to the relevant team.
  2. As such, there is no dispute that there were failings on the part of the landlord in its handling of this matter. The resident suffered distress and frustration due to the communication issues regarding the tree works. It led to the situation on 24 June 2021, which may have been avoided had communication been clearer.
  3. As well as acknowledging and apologising for its failings, the landlord has said that it had learned from the complaint and assured the resident that they would be advised of any future planned works. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation in recognition of its unclear records, its omission to check the tree works order details, and its failure to inform the resident of the works (it also offered an additional £75 for problems the resident experienced in making contact with it during the events of 24 June 2021). This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, which sets out amounts of between £50 and £100 where there has been a failing of a short duration that led to distress and inconvenience. It is also in line with the landlord’s own compensation policy, which allows for compensation to be paid where there has been time, trouble, and inconvenience due to its action or inaction (on a sliding scale from £50 for ‘low impact’ to £400 for ‘high impact’).
  4. This Service considers that the landlord’s acknowledgement of failings, apology, learning outcomes, and compensation offered have provided a  reasonable redress to the distress and frustration caused.

Handling of concerns about the resident’s behaviour and subsequent apology

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states that at the first stage of its process for handling reports of ASB, a resident would be informed about the behaviour, and this confirmed in writing. Should this not resolve the matter, formal action may be taken.
  2. The records indicate that an allegation of ASB was made against the resident on the 25 June 2021, and the landlord subsequently opened an ASB case.
  3. The records show that the landlord called the resident to discuss this on 8 July 2021, referring to a report of the resident having been ‘aggressive, intimidating and threatening’ to both contractors and a resident. It was reasonable and in line with its ASB policy for the landlord to make contact with the resident to inform them of the allegation.
  4. The records show that the landlord did not ask the resident for their version of events, which it would have been appropriate to do, although the resident strongly refuted the allegations. The records also show that the landlord called the resident again on 14 July 2021 to discuss the tree issue. During this conversation, the resident requested specific details about the allegations made against them and requested that the landlord put the allegation of aggressive behaviour in writing. The landlord said that it would investigate the matter, but did not provide any specific details and did not write to the resident, which was not in line with its ASB policy. This was a failing. However, during this call it advised the resident that it was not going to pursue any ASB action (although did not clarify the reasons why).
  5. Internal records from 16 July 2021 demonstrate the landlord made enquiries regarding the allegations of ASB. It was noted that its contractors did not wish to give any statements regarding this and wanted the matter to be dropped. The records available from the contractor state that ‘things did get heated’ on 24 June 2021 but there were no threats of violence and the situation had been under control. The landlord did not inform the resident of this until 8  February 2022, in its stage one complaint response.
  6. It is clear that the allegation caused the resident distress and upset, but while the Ombudsman acknowledges this this, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to raise the matter with them in the first instance. However, the subsequent failings in its handling of the matter as detailed above exacerbated the resident’s distress. It should have updated the resident following on from the 16 July 2021 information received, to let him know that its enquiries had resulted in the conclusion that there had been no ASB .
  7. In its responses to the formal complaint the landlord has acknowledged and sincerely apologised for its failure to follow its ASB policy and procedure. It noted that it had not attempted to establish the resident’s version of events or put the allegations in writing, that information provided during the telephone calls was unclear, and it had failed to provide updates to the resident. The landlord advised it had learned lessons from the resident’s complaint, the matter had been raised with the staff member in question, and refresher training would be implemented. The landlord also offered the resident £200 compensation for its failings and an additional £75 for time and trouble and inconvenience in pursuing the matter. The landlord also confirmed in writing that there was no ASB on the part of the resident towards any other individual.
  8. Overall, and while acknowledging that the resident remains dissatisfied, the landlord has taken reasonable steps to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’ in this case. It has acknowledged and apologised for its failings and retracted the allegation. The resident was made aware a week after the initial telephone call about the matter that no ASB action was being pursued. The compensation offered is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, as well as the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which sets out amounts over £100 where a resident has been adversely affected by a failing, but there has been no permanent impact.

 Complaint handling

  1. The complaints policy sets out a two stage process. At stage one the landlord should contact the resident within two working days to acknowledge the complaint and discuss if necessary. It should provide a full response within five to ten working days. If the resident remained dissatisfied, they could escalate to stage two. At stage two the landlord should respond within 20 working days, and if there was to be a delay with this, it should explain this to the resident and tell them when they could expect a response.
  2. It is clear from the evidence in this case that the landlord did not follow its complaint process, with delays and mishandling of the matter. The resident made their complaint on 24 June 2021, then provided additional information that was acknowledged by the landlord on 9 August 2021. The resident contacted the landlord several times for an update before a response to the stage one complaint was provided by the In February 2022. This was six months outside of its own timescales.
  3. This was a significant failing that caused the resident frustration, and time and trouble in pursing the matter. The stage two response was also provided around a month outside of the policy timeframe, but the landlord did communicate with the resident regarding the need for an extension, in line with its policy.
  4. At the conclusion of its complaints process, the landlord acknowledged the failings in its complaint handling and apologised to the resident for these. It acknowledged it did not register the complaint made on 24 June 2021 until early 2022 and did not respond to the complaint within the published timeframes. It has offered the resident £125 compensation for this.
  5. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for these failings, and the £125 offer demonstrates that it made efforts to ‘put things right’ for the resident. However, the amount was insufficient given the length of the delay in responding at stage one. In addition, there is little indication that it has identified the reasons for the failings in the complaint handling or taken action to prevent a recurrence. As such a finding of service failure is made (rather than the more serious finding of maladministration, given the attempts to ‘put thing right’), along with orders for redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident’s complaints about:
  1. record keeping and communication regarding tree works in the communal area, and;
  1. handling of concerns about the resident’s behaviour and its subsequent apology.
  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
  1. Pay the resident £100 as a remedy to the adverse effect caused by the complaint handling failures. This is in addition to the £500 compensation offered in its May 2021 stage one response, which should also be paid if it has not done so already.
  2. Review the complaint handling failures in this case, to determine what action has been/will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of this.
  3. Ensure that its staff are fully trained in its complaint handling policy and procedures, as well as the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handing Code.