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

Coastline Housing Limited (202202199)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202199

Coastline Housing Limited

4 December 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 the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
    1. Complaint handling.
    2. Record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom house. The resident has multiple health conditions which include mental and physical illnesses. They are also in recovery for addiction issues.
  2. The resident made several reports of ASB from their neighbour, between March and September 2022. This included alleged noise concerns, use of cannabis, and inappropriate behaviour. The resident has described that the alleged ASB has had a significant impact on their mental wellbeing. They have raised concerns that the drug use they have reported puts them at risk of a relapse in their recovery.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 26 April 2022. The landlord responded on 1 June 2022. The landlord apologised that there were ongoing issues at the resident’s property. It advised that it had requested the neighbour to stop using drugs on their property. It confirmed it would contact the neighbour again should issues continue. However, the landlord also said it would be unlikely to be successful in any legal action unless there was evidence of drug dealing. It acknowledged other reports of noise and inappropriate behaviour. It requested that the resident kept diary sheets. It stated that once it had enough diary sheets, it would consult with a solicitor to see if there was sufficient evidence for legal action. The stage 1 response also offered mediation between the resident and the neighbour.
  4. The resident escalated their complaint on 4 July 2022. They felt the landlord had not appropriately addressed the concerns regarding drug use at the property. The landlord responded on 12 September 2022. It stated the correct actions had been taken. This included offering mediation which the neighbour refused, providing diary sheets, visiting the resident and the neighbour, issuing a warning to the neighbour, and working with the police.
  5. The landlord stated it could not evict the neighbour as this would need to go through court. It stated that this would be unlikely as legal action would only be for high level ASB. The landlord issued an acceptable behaviour contract to both residents following a physical altercation. It stated that if noise complaints persisted it would consider noise recording equipment. It also stated it could help in reviewing options if the resident wanted to move.
  6. The resident was unhappy that the landlord had recorded them as the aggressor in the physical altercation and not as the victim. They would like compensation as they feel the landlord has not taken sufficient action to stop the ASB. Alternatively, they would like to be moved to one of the new build properties on their estate.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

  1. The landlord’s policy states that it will record all ASB within 24 hours and contact the resident within 4 working days to agree an action plan. The resident made a report of noise nuisance on 20 March 2022. The landlord contacted the resident on 24 March 2022, offering to speak to the neighbour. The resident emailed the landlord on 25 March 2022 and asked for no further action to be taken. The landlord responded in accordance with its ASB policy.
  2. The resident was concerned that there would be repercussions from making the report. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide assurance to the resident that reports were managed confidentially, as stated in its ASB policy. The Service has not seen the email sent to the resident, and therefore cannot comment on whether the landlord provided sufficient assurances to the resident.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 9 April 2022 to report noise concerns, recreational drug use, fly tipping and abusive behaviour from the neighbour. The landlord did not contact the resident until 29 April 2022 which was beyond its timescales to respond under its ASB policy.
  4. The landlord advised the resident on 29 April 2022 that it had sent a warning email to the neighbour. It was positive that the landlord took action to tackle the ASB.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord again on 1 and 3 May 2022. On 4 May 2022 they raised a further complaint online. They reported noise, use of cannabis and inappropriate behaviour by the neighbour. The resident made the landlord aware that this was having a significant impact on their wellbeing. The resident raised concerns that the drug use was making them very anxious, as they were in recovery for addiction. The Service has not seen evidence in the landlord’s records regarding contact it made with the resident at this time. However, in an email to the landlord on 5 May 2022 the resident thanked the landlord for its visit on 4 May 2022. The resident also stated that they believed the landlord had visited the neighbour. It was positive that the landlord visited the resident and the neighbour. However, due to poor record keeping, the Service cannot comment on the outcome of these visits, or any action taken.
  6. The resident sent 4 emails between the 10 May 2022 and 15 May 2022. These emails reported concerns of noise, use of cannabis and inappropriate behaviour. The resident also reiterated the significant impact the situation was having on their health. The landlord sent an email on 15 May 2022 to advise it would be visiting the neighbour. It confirmed it would provide feedback to the resident following the visit. The landlord has responded within 4 working days and confirmed what action it would be taking.
  7. The landlord contacted the resident on 18 May 2022 to advise it would be visiting the neighbour on 23 May 2022. It confirmed it would provide feedback to the resident. It offered to visit the resident, or call depending on the resident’s preference. The landlord completed the visit to the neighbour on 23 May 2022. It found no evidence of drug use. It spoke with the neighbour about noise volumes and asked the neighbour to be considerate when playing music. The landlord emailed the resident the outcome of the visit and suggested mediation. The resident agreed to this. The landlord took positive action to try and improve the situation for the resident and the neighbour.
  8. In its stage 1 response the landlord set expectations for the resident that it would be unlikely to be successful in legal action to gain repossession of the neighbour’s property. This was positive from the landlord, as it was important the resident was aware that they were unlikely to get the preferred outcome of legal action. The landlord also provided diary sheets and confirmed it would continue to respond to reports of ASB. The landlord took the correct action to offer assurance that it would continue to take reports seriously.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 July 2022 as they were unhappy with how the landlord had handled the drug use at the property. The resident felt legal action should be taken and reiterated the effect this was having on their wellbeing. The resident was sent diary sheets on 6 July 2022. It is positive the landlord took action to gather further evidence regarding anti-social behaviour.
  10. The resident emailed on 6 July 2022 to report inappropriate behaviour from the neighbour. The resident raised again that they felt legal action should be taken. The Service cannot see that the resident received a response to this email. The next correspondence from the landlord was on 21 July 2022 to advise that it was running late for a meeting with the resident. The resident cancelled this due to personal circumstances. The landlord asked the resident to contact them when the resident was ready to rearrange.
  11. The resident emailed the landlord on 26 July 2022, alleging that the neighbour had assaulted them. The landlord responded to ask if the police had been contacted. The resident advised they had not contacted the police. On 29 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord video footage of the incident. They contacted the landlord again on 30 July 2022 to advise they felt their debit card had been stolen during the altercation. The resident also advised they had now contacted the police. The resident was extremely distressed in these emails. The landlord responded to the resident on 1 August 2022 to state that it could not prove her debit card had been taken by the neighbour. It stated this would be a police matter. The landlord confirmed it was reviewing the video footage.
  12. The resident emailed the landlord on 3 August 2022 to ask if the footage had been reviewed. The landlord responded that it would forward the email to the tenancy team. The resident sent diary sheets on 8 August 2022. The resident also reported drug use by their neighbour on 11 August 2022 to. The resident informed the landlord on 17 August 2022 that the police had considered the resident to be the perpetrator of the assault. The resident stated they had acted in self-defence. The resident was being contacted by the landlord during this period regarding their complaint. However, there is no evidence that the landlord was specifically contacting about the continued ASB reports.
  13. In response to the alleged assault, the landlord took advice from the police. It had both residents sign an acceptable behaviour contract. The resident was unhappy about signing the contract as they considered themselves to be the victim, however the landlord acted appropriately in seeking advice from the police.
  14. The Service has not seen any formal action plans on any of the reported incidents of ASB, which contravenes the landlord’s own policy. Although the landlord took several positive actions to try and tackle the ASB, it was important that the resident was given clear information on what would happen moving forward. Failing to do this added to the resident’s distress.
  15. The landlord has informed the Service that it did not conduct any risk assessments. The Service is aware that the landlord had seen needs assessments from support services and that the landlord was aware of a safeguarding referral from the police. Although there was evidence that the resident’s needs were being assessed from other services, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to conduct its own risk assessment. This should have had a particular focus on the ongoing reports of ASB and the effect this was having on the resident.
  16. Although there were no action plans as per its policy, the Service has seen evidence that the landlord reacted to the reports of the ASB and tried several different methods to resolve the resident’s concerns. The Service notes that the landlord did not always respond within its own timeframes and recognises that this added to the resident’s distress. A risk assessment would have been appropriate; however, the Service also recognises that the landlord had seen assessments from support services and from a safeguarding referral. Whilst the actions it took were overall positive, there are some areas where the landlord has missed an opportunity to fully comply with its own policy. As such there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. The landlord considers that a stage 1 complaint was raised on 4 May 2022. The Service has seen a letter from the resident to the landlord, dated 26 April 2022 which states it is a formal complaint. The landlord has provided evidence that they received this on 3 May 2022. The Service considers this date to be when the stage 1 was raised. The landlord did not respond to the complaint for 21 working days. The Service has seen no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to advise that it needed extra time to respond to the complaint. The response was beyond the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy. However, the delay was not excessive.
  2. The resident raised a further formal complaint on 4 July 2022. This was after the stage 1 had been issued to the resident. The complaint was regarding the same issue as the previous stage 1. As such the landlord should have escalated the complaint to stage 2. The landlord did not formally acknowledge the complaint as a stage 2 complaint until the 1 August 2022. During this period the resident continued to report ASB. In failing to properly acknowledge the complaint, the landlord missed an opportunity to give assurance to the resident that it was taking their concerns seriously. This has added to the distress the resident experienced.
  3. The landlord’s policy states that it conducts a review panel for all stage 2 complaints. The landlord invited the resident to the panel. It recognised that the resident may need additional support and contacted the resident’s support worker. The landlord demonstrated good practice in taking this action.
  4. The resident could not go to the first panel meeting. The landlord offered a second date. The landlord offered to pay the resident for travel expenses. It also offered for the meeting to be online via zoom. The landlord demonstrated a strong willingness to ensure the resident had an opportunity to be heard. The Service recognises this as good practice in building a relationship with the resident.
  5. On 18 August 2022, before the resident attended the panel, the landlord issued a letter confirming further details in relation to its ASB policy. It asked the resident to consider this in advance of the meeting. It also reiterated that to gain possession of the neighbour’s property it would have to go to court. The landlord suggested that the resident go through the information with their support worker so they could be prepared for the panel meeting. It was encouraging that the landlord tried to help the resident understand the landlord’s position and to manage expectations.
  6. It took 30 working days for the landlord to issue its stage 2 response. The Service recognises that the delay in issuing the stage 2 was due to arranging the panel. The resident was unable to attend the first date and a second date was arranged. Although this meant the landlord was delayed in responding to the complaint, it was important to ensure the resident had an opportunity to fully express their concerns at the panel.
  7. The Service recognises good practice from the landlord in aspects of its complaint handling. There were positive attempts to engage with the resident and to provide support to ensure the resident felt heard. The landlord has not responded within its time frames at stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaints process. The landlord failed to recognise the initial complaint. It also failed to recognise an escalation to stage 2 on 4 July 2022. In not recognising these complaints, the landlord has failed to give assurance that it was taking the resident’s complaint seriously. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Record keeping

  1. During the investigation we have noted that some information has not been made available. For example, the landlord has not provided any evidence of a visit conducted on 4 May 2022. However, in an email seen by this service the resident has thanked the landlord for visiting their property on that date.
  2. There are limited notes in relation to visits to the resident and the neighbour. This has made it difficult for the Service to fully understand actions the landlord has taken.
  3. There is at least one email noted as being sent on the timeline provided to the Service by the landlord, that this Service has not seen. The Service contacted the landlord before conducting the investigation to ask it to check if there was any other correspondence, we should be aware of. The landlord did not provide any further correspondence.
  4. The poor record keeping has meant the Service has not had access to see all actions the landlord might have taken in response to the ASB. It has meant we have been unable to fully assess at times whether the landlord provided sufficient support to the resident. The Service finds service failure in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Housing Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Housing Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Housing Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to pay a total of £150 compensation to the resident. This is calculated as:
    1. £100 for failing to follow its ASB process and produce clear action plans.
    2. £50 for failing to recognise the initial complaint and complaint escalation.
  2. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to conduct a risk assessment in accordance with its policy, in relation to any ongoing concerns of ASB the resident has.

 

Recommendations

  1.  It is recommended that the landlord review its record keeping in line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management published in May 2023.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord review its ASB policy, specifically in relation to action plans and provide clarity on what it expects an action plan to contain.
  3. It is recommended the landlord provide training to all staff in relation to when a risk assessment is necessary and what it is expected to contain.