Hyde Housing Association Limited (202306541)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306541

Hyde Housing Association Limited

15 March 2024

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant, and his tenancy began on 30 June 2022. The property is a one bed flat in a block owned by the landlord, a registered provider of social housing. The resident has vulnerabilities recorded on the landlord’s system.
On 20 and 25 July 2022 the resident sent reports of ASB to the landlord. The landlord states it did not receive them. The resident called the landlord on 18 October 2022 to report more ASB from his neighbour. The reports included noise nuisance, criminal incidents, rubbish, threats, harassment, and communal area concerns. An ASB case was raised. The resident was advised to expect a call that week from the ASB Officer who would discuss the progress of the case. He was also advised the neighbour would be contacted.
The resident did not hear anything from the landlord. On 7 December 2022 he was given some diary sheets to complete and the day after a letter was sent to the neighbour. On 2 February 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to ask if things had improved. From February 2023 through to May 2023 the resident contacted the landlord frequently reporting further ASB incidents and asking for updates on the case. He also stated on several occasions during this time that the situation was adversely affecting his mental health. Internally the ASB management team were supporting the ASB Officer and advising what actions needed to be taken.
On 26 May 2023 the resident asked the landlord for help as the police had advised him it was not safe for him to remain in the property. The police also contacted the landlord to support a move for the resident. The landlord advised the resident to:
1. Contact a national housing and homeless charity.
2. Register with the landlord’s internal choice-based letting service.
3. Register for rehousing with the Local Authority and provide them with the police information.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 23 May 2023 for some advice and said that he was complaining about his landlord’s poor communication in response to his reports of ASB. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s stage 1 response upheld the complaint and acknowledged its failings around its communication with the resident. It offered £500 compensation and agreed several actions moving forward.
The resident was not satisfied and escalated the complaint to stage 2. The landlord responded on 19 June 2023, confirmed it believed the stage 1 complaint had been a fair investigation and fair remedies were offered. It relisted the actions it intended to take. The resident was not happy with the response and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.
The resident has continued to report ongoing ASB from the neighbour to the landlord, up to the present day. The issues are ongoing and are not resolved. On 8 December 2023 the police provided a letter of support for a management move. At the time of this report the Ombudsman has been advised that a priority moves application has not been completed and the enforcement notice has not been served on the neighbour. The resident has advised the Ombudsman that he feels the landlord still does not communicate well and his mental health continues to worsen.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident has referenced how the landlord’s failure to resolve the ASB has impacted his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about his health. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Therefore, we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the ASB and the resident’s health. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
The resident has indicated that there are further issues that he feels the landlord has not satisfactorily addressed. These include the conduct of staff members. In the interest of fairness, the Ombudsman can only consider issues that have completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and have been brought to the Ombudsman. The resident has a complaint with the landlord presently about this matter.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

On 18 October 2022 the resident reported ASB and was advised the ASB officer would call him the week commencing 17 October 2022. It was therefore reasonable to expect the landlord would call by 21 October 2022. The resident chased the landlord on 7 November 2022 but did not receive a response until 7 December 2022. This was 37 working days after the resident’s initial report and 32 working days beyond the landlord’s target response time. It was inappropriate and unreasonable of the landlord to delay contact for this length of time. The resident was left unaware of what the landlord was doing with the reports.
The ASB policy lists the actions that are required at the initial interview with the resident who has made the report. It includes (but is not limited to):
1. To complete a risk assessment matrix to assess what, if any, support is required.
2. Agree initial actions with the person making the report.
3. Agree an action plan which can include a preferred method and timeframe to report incidents.
4. To agree a preferred method and frequency of contact and setting the first case review date.
The resident has stated that the landlord did not carry out these actions and the landlord has not provided evidence to demonstrate it adhered to the policy. The landlord has acted inappropriately and unreasonably. Not completing these actions had a negative impact on the management of the case going forward.
Specifically, the landlord knew the resident was vulnerable and the absence of a risk assessment meant the landlord could not signpost the resident to the appropriate support agencies. On 13 March and 5 April 2023, the resident made specific mention to his declining mental health because of the ASB from the neighbour. The evidence suggests that referrals for the resident were not offered until 21 December 2023. This was inappropriate. It contributed to the resident feeling that the neighbour was being supported by the landlord more than the resident.
Section 11 of the landlord’s ASB procedure states that the ASB Officer will take all reasonable steps to gather evidence in the quickest time possible. It can include witness statements, diary sheets, CCTV, noise monitors and hearsay evidence. The resident’s email to the landlord on 9 November 2022 said that the police required the block CCTV footage. The resident told the Ombudsman that it is his understanding that the police never received this. The landlord gave the resident diary sheets on 7 December 2022 but there is no record logged of whether they were received or reviewed. On 2 March 2023 the resident reported an incident and suggested the landlord looked at the CCTV. There is no record on the ASB case to confirm if this happened. On 13 March 2023 the resident told the landlord he had lots of evidence. The Landlord agreed to visit to look at the evidence but there is no record of a visit until 21 November 2023. By not acting quickly in collecting and reviewing evidence, the landlord would have lost opportunities to use good evidence, to implement legal and non-legal action against the neighbour, and to try and resolve the ASB. By not collecting the evidence quickly the resident was left for too long experiencing ASB.
Section 12 of the landlord’s ASB procedure is about partnership working and the importance of engaging with other services to support victims and alleged perpetrators, to resolve ASB. The landlord has provided evidence that in November 2023 it was in contact with support services for the neighbour. Whilst the resident has expressed that he felt the landlord showed bias towards the neighbour, the landlord acted appropriately in engaging with the neighbour’s support agencies and trying to jointly resolve the ASB.
The resident and the landlord identified the engagement with other services that was required on this case. In May 2023 the resident mentioned police contact and possible social services involvement. In the stage 1 landlord complaint response one of the resolutions was that the landlord would engage with the police and work in partnership to take robust action. The landlord has not provided evidence that it adhered to this resolution. In not doing so it acted unreasonably in not fulfilling its commitment agreed with the resident on 9 June 2023.
On the 19 November 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and advised he would be contacting Environmental Health and the MP. If the landlord did engage with the police and other services (and some communication from the resident suggests that it did), it has not logged or provided notes that detail the communication. The landlord’s poor recordkeeping did not support effective ASB management.
Section 14 of the landlord’s ASB procedure details the different type of action the landlord can take – both legal and non-legal. No evidence has been provided to show clearly what different types of actions were considered and what the outcome was. In an internal email on 13 March 2023 the ASB team leader directed the ASB officer to consider a referral to a multi-agency group and to speak to the police as there was enough evidence for a closure order. Whether this happened and the outcome of its consideration is not documented. The stage 1 response stated that an enforcement notice would be served on the neighbour. It is a failing of the landlord that the case does not clearly document the actions that have been considered and the decisions. The lack of complete recordkeeping would make it difficult for the case to be accurately reviewed, which could result in a missed opportunity to resolve the ASB early on.
The stage 1 landlord complaint response upheld the resident’s complaint, acknowledged its poor communication, and listed actions that the landlord was going to take:
1. Complete a priority moves application with the resident.
2. Liaise with the police and work in partnership to take robust action including serving an enforcement notice on the neighbour.
3. Visit the resident week commencing 12 June 2023.
Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The landlord attempted to put things right in the response, both in its proposed actions and its compensation of £500. The offer of compensation made was a fair remedy and recognised the failings of the landlord and the impact it had had on the resident. However, the landlord failed to successfully complete its actions in a reasonable timeframe or within the timeframes given. It did not improve its communication. It did not learn from its mistakes and in not doing so, did not improve the management of the case for the resident.
Up to the present day the communication from the landlord has not been appropriate. The call logs provided show the resident contacted the landlord frequently via email and phone asking for updates and providing ASB reports. Callbacks were logged for the ASB Officer but were not completed in a timely manner. The failure of the landlord to put in place an action plan detailing communication frequency meant that the resident made frequent contact with the landlord, which the landlord could not manage.
On 6 January 2024 the landlord sent an email to the resident and said it would contact him once a fortnight with an update. This is good practice in ASB cases and is within the landlord’s ASB procedure. This should have been done at the beginning of the case. The resident has reported to the Ombudsman that the fortnightly updates did happen for a while but have recently stopped. He said that he now repeatedly calls the landlord to try and get a callback. This is an understandable reaction from the resident, given the failure of the landlord to maintain good quality communication with him.
In summary, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord has not demonstrated that it handled the case in line with its procedure or that it proactively managed the case and supported the resident. The communication and recordkeeping were poor. A fair remedy was offered at stage 1 of the complaint process. However, its failure to complete its complaint commitments means that the Ombudsman has made further orders including compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused

On 26 May 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and told them the police had advised him not to stay at the property for his safety. The landlord advised him to contact a national housing and homeless charity and that the ASB officer would call back before 5pm. There is no evidence that the landlord called back. Further call logs suggest it did happen as the resident called again on 2 June 2023 to speak to the landlord about a referral to its internal lettings system for an emergency move. Appropriate advice was given on this call regarding the resident’s housing options. This advice should have been given when the resident first contacted on 26 May 2023.
On 2 June 2023 the police called the landlord and advocated for the resident to be moved due to harassment and threats. The landlord has a priority moves procedure. Paragraph 8.2 states that the following reasons will be considered for a priority move: “tenants where there is clear evidence from a professional source of domestic abuse or anti-social behaviour, where all alternative housing options have been exhausted”. There is no evidence provided to document that the landlord considered the request for the resident to be rehoused and spoke to the resident and the police. The absence of any records of communication around the rehousing request is not appropriate and has resulted in the Ombudsman being unable to understand exactly what happened.
On 9 June 2023 the landlord committed to complete a priority move application form. On 29 February 2024 the resident informed the Ombudsman this has not yet been completed. The landlord acted inappropriately. It should have completed the actions in the complaint responses in a reasonable timeframe.
There is conflicting information. In the evidence from the landlord, it stated that the resident was not eligible for a priority move as he does not meet the threshold and that other housing options were given. This conflicts with the stage 1 response and the resident informing the Ombudsman he is of the opinion that there is still an intention from the landlord that it will complete the form with him. The landlord has failed to clearly explain to the resident what the process is and to document the communication and actions since 26 May 2023. The landlord has not delivered on the action stated in the stage 1 complaint response. If the landlord believes the resident is not eligible for a priority move this has not been explained to the resident or logged on the landlord’s systems. The landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations.
In summary, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused. The landlord has not clearly demonstrated the actions it took when the resident and police requested a move for the resident in May and June 2023. Its recordkeeping was poor. Orders have been made below to reflect this finding.

The landlord’s complaint handling

On the 13 March 2023 the resident told the landlord that the ASB was ongoing. He specifically stated that he was unhappy with the lack of progress and lack of contact. Paragraph 1.3 of the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) stipulates that an individual does not have to use the word complaint for it to be treated as such. The landlord should have recognised this as an expression of dissatisfaction and raised a complaint. By not doing so it acted inappropriately. It prevented the resident from entering the internal complaints process and ultimately delayed the resident being able to access the Ombudsman’s services. By not addressing the resident’s concerns at this time, the landlord did not enable itself to put things right or learn from outcomes.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 23 May 2023. He said he had complained in July 2022. On 26 May 2023 the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide a complaint response to the resident.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days. Stage 1 responses will be within 10 working days of the acknowledgement and stage 2 responses will be within 20 working days of the escalation request. The landlord provided an acknowledgement letter on 31 May 2023, a stage 1 response on 9 June 2023 and a stage 2 response on 19 June 2023. These were all in line with its policy, the Ombudsman’s request of a response by 19 June 2023 and the Code.
The acknowledgement letter listed 3 issues it would investigate which included why the complaint of July 2022 went unanswered. During the landlord’s stage 1 investigation it received confirmation from its digital team that there was no record of an online form being received from the resident in July 2022. The resident has provided the Ombudsman with evidence of the online form. However, the Ombudsman acknowledges that technical errors can and do occur. The stage 1 complaint response confirmed that it would not investigate this part of the complaint as it was more than 6 months prior to the complaint being made. The Ombudsman finds this decision unreasonable. The landlord’s complaint policy allows discretion on complaint timeframes, and it is not clear why the landlord did not apply it. The landlord had information from the digital team that it could have shared with the resident and offered an apology. By not doing so it has acted unreasonably and they should have included the information in the response.
Paragraph 5.5 of the Code states that stage 1 response actions should be tracked, and the resident updated regularly. The landlord’s complaints procedure also states that proposed actions, timescales and responsible people will be set out in the response. The resident was given the name and number of the person overseeing the complaint commitments which was good practice from the landlord. Only one of the actions had a timescale. The landlord has provided no evidence to show the actions were tracked or that the resident was updated regularly. Nearly 7 months have passed since the stage 1 complaint response and 2 of the actions have not been completed. This is inappropriate.
Paragraph 5.8 of the Code says that the complaint definition should be clear. In all 3 letters from the landlord (the acknowledgment letter, the stage 1 complaint response, and the stage 2 complaint response), the complaint is not clearly defined. The acknowledgement letter mentioned that the resident had been advised not to stay at the property by the police. It was unclear whether the landlord’s handling of this information was part of the complaint or not. It was not clear whether the landlord was accepting the complaint about the ASB or the poor communication, or both. It is the role of the landlord to clearly define the difference between a report of ASB and a complaint about how the landlord has dealt with the ASB. The complaints process is an opportunity to speak to the resident and seek clarity on the complaint. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord, and it acted inappropriately.
The stage 1 complaint response offered a total of £500 compensation:
1. £100 for the delay to service delivery.
2. £150 for customer effort.
3. £250 for distress and inconvenience.
The compensation definitions could have been clearer. The term ‘customer effort’ does not exist in the landlord’s compensation procedure. It should use the terminology it states in its procedure.
The stage 2 complaint response did not state the outcome the resident was seeking, and it did not clearly state it was the stage 2 response. These stipulations form paragraph 5.10 and 5.16 of the Code. This caused confusion for the resident. He contacted the Ombudsman and advised that the landlord had refused to escalate to stage 2 and had closed the case. This was not the case, but it is understandable that the resident thought this, as the stage 2 complaint response was not clear. The landlord acted inappropriately.
In summary, there wasmaladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord failed to use the complaints process to affect a lasting resolution. The ASB issues remain unresolved, and the resident remains dissatisfied. The landlord has not demonstrated, in its actions since the complaint was made, that it derived any learnings from the failings in this case.Orders have been made below to reflect this finding.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to apologise for the impact of its failures on the resident. This written apology must be from a member of the landlord’s senior management team.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1150 (which replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £500) broken down as follows:
1. £750 for the failures in the handling of the ASB case, resulting in distress and inconvenience to the resident, and the time and trouble in contacting the landlord.
2. £200 for the failures in the handling of the rehousing request, resulting in distress and inconvenience to the resident.
3. £200 for service failures in its complaint handling.
This amount (less any previous amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid direct to the resident and not to a rent or service charge account.
Within 4 weeks of this report to meet with the resident in person to discuss the rehousing request, the ASB case and complete a risk assessment. To complete a written action plan on both matters, that is clear, timely and achievable. To provide a copy of the action plan in writing to the resident and the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of this report.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report to carry out a review of the ASB case and seek to:
1. Identify the failings and their root cause.
2. Identify any necessary training and process changes to ensure the failings are not replicated.
3. Produce a timeline of actions, with completion dates. To provide a copy to the Ombudsman.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report to carry out a review of the response to the rehousing request and seek to:
1. Identify the failings and their root cause.
2. Identify any necessary training and process changes to ensure the failings are not replicated.
3. Produce a timeline of actions, with completion dates. To provide a copy to the Ombudsman.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should review its recordkeeping and information management and write to the Ombudsman:
1. Setting out where and how its current policies and processes, in relation to ASB and rehousing requests, conform to the recommendations contained in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM).
2. Identifying where its current policies and processes, in relation to ASB and rehousing requests, do not conform to the recommendations in the KIM report and how it will bring about compliance.