Platform Housing Group Limited (202124990)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124990

Platform Housing Group Limited

25 August 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 complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise, harassment and antisocial behaviour by neighbours;
2. The landlord’s handling of reports that the resident was engaging in antisocial behaviour;
3. The conduct of the landlord’s staff;
4. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy for the property the resident occupied during the period of this complaint started on 22 December 2017. The resident has since moved to a different property through the landlord’s management move process. The resident is vulnerable, and has mental health issues the landlord is aware of.
The resident previously made complaints about how the landlord handled her requests for a management move, and those complaints have already been determined by the Ombudsman. The resident’s complaint about how the landlord handled her request for a management move out of the property in question was investigated by the Ombudsman in March 2021 under reference 202006058. That investigation considered whether the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management move was in line with its policy, and assessed the handling of the associated complaint. It did not include a determination of the resident’s complaints about how the landlord handled her reports of antisocial behaviour, which will be considered as part of this investigation.
The resident moved out of the property through the landlord’s management move process in December 2021. The resident has also made a complaint about the landlord’s decision not to offer her a further move out of that property and into another. That complaint is part of a separate investigation by the Ombudsman, as it is a separate management move request related to a different property. As such, that complaint will not be considered as part of this investigation.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy says it will take a balanced approach to antisocial behaviour using a combination of prevention, enforcement, in-house support or signposting to external agencies. It says that which is the most appropriate will be determined on a case by case basis. It has not provided a copy of any policy or procedure setting out timescales for responding to reports of antisocial behaviour, or whether there are any steps it will take in every case.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints process. Under its complaints policy, stage one responses should be issued within 15 working days, and stage two responses should be issued within 15 working days of a valid escalation request. The policy says that a complaint will not be automatically escalated because a resident is unhappy, and that when a resident introduces new matters in the escalation request, those will be dealt with separately and the complaint will be deemed resolved.

Scope of the investigation

From reviewing the information provided by both parties, it is evident that the resident had reported ongoing antisocial behaviour from neighbours from at least October 2019 onwards. The Ombudsman also notes the resident’s comments that the issues were ongoing after the landlord’s response to her complaint.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. The resident’s initial complaint from April 2020 has completed the landlord’s internal complaints process and so will be considered as part of this investigation.
The resident made a later complaint about the antisocial behaviour case being closed in July 2020, and about the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour in October 2020. Those were not part of the initial complaint, and those complaints had not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process at the time the resident contacted the Ombudsman. As such, the Ombudsman can only consider the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour up to the date of its stage two response in May 2020.

Summary of events

On 11 October 2019, the resident reported that a neighbour had been shouting and swearing at her. The landlord wrote to the resident on the same day to acknowledge the report of antisocial behaviour and provide diary sheets for the resident to complete. On 23 October 2019, the landlord received third party reports that the resident was engaging in antisocial behaviour.
The landlord’s records show that during October 2019, the landlord attended a number of properties on site alongside the police. The landlord also liaised with the police regarding the reported antisocial behaviour on multiple occasions.
The landlord’s records show it received further third party reports alleging that the resident was engaging in antisocial behaviour on 7 November 2019. The landlord arranged to visit the property with the police on 2 December 2019. The landlord’s contemporaneous notes from the visit state that it informed the resident of the allegations made against her, which she denied. The notes say the resident told the landlord that the neighbours were colluding to target her with false allegations, and she felt that nobody would listen to her because of her mental health. The landlord made enquiries about the resident’s support network, and the resident confirmed she had sufficient support.
The landlord’s logs show that the police visited both the resident and her neighbour in January 2020 to discuss the reports of antisocial behaviour, and concluded that no further action was necessary. The logs state that the resident sent the landlord regular text messages with reports that she was unable to sleep due to the noise from her neighbour’s flat, but told the landlord she would not have any noise-recording equipment from environmental health installed.
On or around 24 April 2020, the resident made a complaint. The landlord issued its stage one response on 24 April 2020. It said:
1. It had investigated the allegations of antisocial behaviour made by the resident, as well as those made about the resident, and that both sets of allegations had been managed in line with the landlord’s policy.
2. The reports made about the resident had been investigated, the police had been involved to assist in resolving the issues, and a warning letter had been issued to the resident. Following this, allegations about the resident had stopped, and the case had been closed.
3. The complaints the resident made about her neighbour largely related to noise nuisance, but also included acts of intimidation such as tissues being left around her door and her front door being kicked. The alleged perpetrator had been warned verbally and by letter, as well as receiving police visits.
4. Since the neighbour received warnings and police visits, the resident reported that noise nuisance had continued. A further warning letter had been issued, but more evidence would be needed to take the neighbour to court. To help with this, the landlord had offered a spy-hole CCTV camera and assistance in referring the case to environmental health, but the resident had declined.
5. There would be no legal action against the neighbour without further evidence, so the case may be closed if the resident was unable to provide that evidence. The landlord extended its previous offer to install CCTV and help with referring the case to environmental health.
On 20 June 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord. She said the problems with her neighbour were affecting her mental health. She said she felt there was no point installing noise-monitoring equipment as the landlord would have to tell the neighbour when it was installed, and CCTV would not solve the issue as the noise was from inside the neighbour’s flat. She said the landlord had told her it could not take further action regarding antisocial behaviour without proof, but she did not want to hear that as the antisocial behaviour was impacting her physical and mental health. She disputed that she had been involved in any antisocial behaviour, and said that her neighbour had gotten multiple friends to lie about her to the landlord.
On 7 July 2020, the landlord assessed the antisocial behaviour case at a senior level. The notes from the review say the landlord had liaised with police and issued warnings, but the police concluded there was no evidence to support further action. It said it had offered professional mediation, a CCTV camera with sound recording, and help referring the case to environmental health, but this had been declined by the resident. The landlord’s notes say it wanted to be sure it had exhausted all available options before closing the case. Following a discussion at a senior level, it concluded that the antisocial behaviour case should be closed, but that if the resident reported new antisocial behaviour, was able to provide evidence of the previous reported behaviour, or sought assistance from environmental health, it could try to assist her.
On 13 July 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm it had closed the antisocial behaviour case.
On 21 July 2020, the resident made a complaint about the landlord’s decision to close the antisocial behaviour case.
On 24 July 2020, the landlord sent its stage two response to the resident’s initial complaint. It said:
1. It had offered assistance in the form of referrals or general support, but the resident had declined any intervention from the neighbourhood officer.
2. As the resident was unwilling to contact environmental health and use noise-monitoring equipment, the landlord had insufficient evidence to take action against her neighbour.
3. It had investigated the reports made about the resident in line with its antisocial behaviour policy and issued a warning letter. It said it appreciated that it can be unpleasant when allegations are made, but as allegations had been made it was duty-bound to investigate them. The reports stopped after the warning letter had been sent to the resident, so the case had been closed.
4. It was satisfied that both the neighbourhood officer and operations manager had handled the resident’s reports professionally, and in line with the landlord’s policies and procedures.
On 13 August 2020, the landlord issued a stage one response to a second complaint made by the resident. It said the alleged perpetrator had been given both verbal and written warnings, evidence gathering had been inconclusive, the resident had rejected assistance such as CCTV or a referral to environmental health, and mediation had been rejected. It said the case was therefore closed and sufficient reasoning had been provided.
From 5 October 2020 onwards, the resident reported further antisocial behaviour.
On 25 and 28 November 2020, the resident sent complaint letters to the landlord. She said she was unhappy with the way the landlord handled the antisocial behaviour, and did not want any of the three staff members involved in the management of her property to be involved any more. She said they had not helped or listened to her, and had told the police she was making up allegations about her neighbours to have her management move approved. She repeated her previous complaints. She also said she would not agree to noise-monitoring equipment as environmental health would have to tell the neighbour it was there, and she would not agree to attend court because of concerns over her safety.
On 13 December 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord again. She repeated her previous complaints about the landlord’s staff and reported further antisocial behaviour from her neighbours. She said the neighbours were making up lies about her, and that the landlord’s operations manager was telling the police lies about her because he did not want to agree to her management move request.
On 15 December 2020, the resident referred her complaint about antisocial behaviour and staff conduct to the Ombudsman. The following day, the resident added that she believed the landlord’s operations manager had deleted information about her management move from the landlord’s system so there would be no proof for the Ombudsman to consider.
On 3 February 2021, the resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord’s staff were making false allegations about her to third parties.
On 13 February 2021, the resident wrote to the Ombudsman. She set out allegations of antisocial behaviour by her neighbours and said the landlord would not take any action. She said the landlord would not respond to her complaints, and her neighbours were making up lies about her.
From 11 March 2021 to 25 November 2021, the resident made further reports of antisocial behaviour. The landlord opened an antisocial behaviour case, sent diary sheets for the resident to complete, referred her to environmental health and the police, and sent a warning letter to the alleged perpetrator.
On 1 June 2021, the resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord on her behalf. They said:
1. Problems with the resident’s neighbour started when she did not return his romantic interest. Since then, that neighbour had been harassing her and encouraging others to do the same, as well as making up false allegations about her.
2. The resident reported the behaviour to the landlord, but the landlord decided it was the resident engaging in antisocial behaviour and disregarded her reports as a result.
3. The resident made noise complaints about another neighbour, including a party which ended with the police being called, but the landlord took no action.
4. The landlord would not support the resident’s request for a management move as it said she was making false allegations of antisocial behaviour in order to get a management move.
5. The landlord’s staff gave other organisations information about the resident that was untrue.
6. The landlord was aware that the resident was vulnerable, and that the antisocial behaviour was impacting her physical and mental health.
7. The resident felt unsafe in her accommodation, and believed the landlord would disregard any reports of antisocial behaviour she made.
8. The resident had previously made complaints, but the landlord would not treat them as complaints.
9. The resident wanted a different point of contact for the landlord.
On 7 July 2021, the landlord’s solicitors responded to the resident. They said:
1. The reports of antisocial behaviour had not been ignored. The landlord carried out an investigation in line with its antisocial behaviour policy, and asked the resident to record details of any incidents and provide evidence so that it could take action. The resident was unwilling to record the noise nuisance or have noise-monitoring equipment installed, so the case was closed due to insufficient evidence. A response to the complaint had been sent on 28 May 2020.
2. The resident was aware that further incidents of antisocial behaviour must be reported to the landlord, and that it would take enforcement action if there was sufficient evidence available.
On 15 July 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident about the new reports of antisocial behaviour. It said it needed evidence, dates and times, and details. It said it understood abuse was hard to prove, but noise could be recorded. It proposed that the neighbourhood officer visit and take a copy of diary sheets for potential legal proceedings. On 3 August 2021, the landlord issued a warning letter to the alleged perpetrator. On 5 August 2021, the landlord updated the resident and confirmed that without evidence it could only issue warnings. On 26 August 2021, the landlord told the resident it would be closing the further antisocial behaviour cases because there was insufficient evidence.
On 4 October 2021, the resident contacted the Ombudsman again and confirmed she wanted to pursue her complaint regarding antisocial behaviour and staff conduct. The Ombudsman referred the resident’s complaints to the landlord, who advised that not all of the complaints had gone through its internal complaints process.
On 15 November 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to clarify her complaint. She said her complaint from November 2020 had not been dealt with and that the operations manager was spreading misinformation about her to stop her getting a management move.
On 25 November 2021, the landlord issued a stage one response to the resident’s further complaint. It said it had found no evidence of inappropriate behaviour by the operations manager, and that it had responded to the complaints it had received from the resident. It offered a mediation meeting with the operations manager, and confirmed that the management move was scheduled to go ahead at the end of December.
On 7 December 2021, the resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage two of the complaints process. She said she wanted the landlord to apologise for speaking to external organisations, and wanted it to tell those organisations that it had provided inaccurate information. She said she felt the person who investigated the complaint was biased.
The landlord attempted to contact the resident on 23 December 2021 and 4 January 2022 to discuss the complaint. The landlord’s notes say that on each occasion the resident said it was not a convenient time to discuss the complaint. On 5 January 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to tell her it would need more time to look into her complaint as it had not been able to discuss the complaint with her, and was now scheduled to do so on 11 January 2022. On 11 January 2022, the landlord tried to call the resident to discuss the complaint, but the resident told the landlord it was not a convenient time to talk. The landlord therefore told the resident it would review the complaint based purely on the information already provided.
On 2 February 2022, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. It said:
1. The operations manager has to communicate with outside agencies as part of their role. It found no evidence of any inappropriate communication, so could not see a basis on which an apology was required.
2. It had found no evidence of incorrect information about the resident being provided to external organisations.
3. It was satisfied it had done all it could to support the resident and had acted appropriately.
4. The resident had provided no specific examples of the bias she reported, so it had completed an overall review. The individual looking into the complaint at stage two had no previous involvement. It said it had found no evidence of bias, and the stage one response was accurate.
On 11 February 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions and response to the complaint.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour

It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident, and it is noted that she has advised that the reported behaviour had a negative impact on her mental health. It should be noted that it is not within the remit of this Service to establish whether the antisocial behaviour reported was occurring as alleged or at all, or whether there was a direct impact on the resident’s physical or mental health, as that is a matter for the courts. The Ombudsman’s role in these types of complaints is to consider the evidence available to determine whether the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances of the case.
In accordance with the landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy, the landlord has an obligation to investigate reports of antisocial behaviour and respond appropriately. The actions a landlord can take in response to reports of antisocial behaviour can be very limited in the absence of supporting evidence, and in practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case may not extend to a resident’s preferred outcome. It is therefore necessary to consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its antisocial behaviour policy, and good industry practice, when dealing with reports of antisocial behaviour.
When a resident reports antisocial behaviour, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to attempt to gather evidence, and consider appropriate actions it could take. This can include completing diary sheets, referring the resident to environmental health or the Noise app if they have reported noise nuisance, or sending warning letters. When considering what action to take, the landlord should consider the available evidence, actions taken by other organisations such as the police, and the support needs of all parties.
Prior to her complaint at the start of 2020, the resident told the landlord that a neighbour had been harassing her, including shouting and swearing at her as she came out of her front door. She also told the police that a neighbour had written insults on the pavement outside her window, and the police passed that information on to the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s reports, and sent her diary sheets to complete. It also visited the properties in the area with the police, liaised with the police on multiple occasions, referred the resident to the local authority’s environmental health department, offered to provide a CCTV camera, and made enquiries regarding the resident’s support system. Its notes also say it issued both verbal and written warnings to the individual in question, and offered to arrange mediation. Those were all reasonable steps to take in response to the resident’s reports.
The Ombudsman appreciates how strongly the resident feels about the behaviour she reported, and does not dispute that she may have been distressed by that behaviour. However, a landlord can only take action based on the evidence available to it.
While the landlord had the resident’s reports, those reports were disputed by the individual in question. The Ombudsman has seen nothing to suggest there was any further evidence available to the landlord which supported the resident’s reports, such as noise recordings, enforcement action by environmental health, or CCTV footage. The police had also confirmed that they would be taking no further action regarding the reported behaviour.
In the absence of supporting evidence, the options available to the landlord were extremely limited. The landlord explained to the resident that there was no further action it could take without evidence, and it arranged for a senior-level review before closing the case, to make sure there were no further actions available to it that it had missed. Its notes from the review show the landlord appropriately considered the resident’s vulnerability when assessing whether to close the antisocial behaviour case. The landlord has demonstrated that it handled the resident’s reports prior to her complaint reasonably, and in line with its policy and good industry practice.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident reported various further antisocial behaviour from October 2020 onwards. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to show that any complaints about the way the landlord handled the subsequent reports had completed the landlord’s internal complaints process at the time this complaint was referred to the Ombudsman. As such, the Ombudsman cannot investigate the landlord’s handling of any subsequent reports as part of this investigation.

Reports of the resident engaging in antisocial behaviour

It is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether or not the reports of the resident engaging in antisocial behaviour were accurate. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess whether the landlord handled the reports appropriately.
The landlord’s records show that third parties had reported antisocial behaviour by the resident in October and November 2019, and again in January 2020. The landlord opened antisocial behaviour cases and sought to investigate the allegations. It made the resident aware of the allegations and issued a warning letter. It then told the resident it had closed the case as reports had stopped after it issued her with the warning letter.
The landlord is required to investigate allegations of antisocial behaviour, and when allegations about the resident were made by third parties, the landlord investigated those allegations in line with its antisocial behaviour policy. While the Ombudsman appreciates how strongly the resident disputes those allegations, the landlord did not act unreasonably in investigating the allegations made, as it was required to do so.

Staff conduct

The resident is dissatisfied with the conduct of the operations manager responsible for the area her property is in. She said the operations manager told other organisations that she was the perpetrator of antisocial behaviour to stop her receiving support with her housing, and was therefore giving inaccurate information about her.
The landlord investigated the concerns raised and responded to the resident with its findings. It said the operations manager was required to speak to other organisations as part of their role, and it was satisfied from its investigation that the operations manager had acted professionally. It said it had found no evidence of any inaccurate information being provided to third parties.
It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the behaviour complained of took place in the way the resident stated, or whether the landlord took appropriate action in response to the outcome of its investigation, as the latter would be a personnel issue outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. It also cannot determine whether the landlord was entitled to pass information about the resident to third parties, or whether any information provided to third parties was accurate, as that would be a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). However, the Ombudsman can consider whether the landlord appropriately investigated the concerns raised.
The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns and attempted to obtain further information from the resident before completing its investigation. Its call records show that the attempts to obtain further information from the resident were unsuccessful, and that it told the resident it would therefore conclude its investigation based purely on the information it had received so far. The Ombudsman has seen nothing in the information provided which suggests that the landlord did not properly investigate the resident’s concerns based on the evidence available.
If the resident believes that the landlord spoke to third parties about her and was not entitled to do so, or that it has provided inaccurate information about her, she can refer her concerns to the ICO, as the ICO has the power to investigate whether there has been a data breach.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman has already investigated the handling of the resident’s April 2020 complaint under complaint reference 202006058. As such, the landlord’s handling of that complaint will not be considered as part of this investigation. However, the Ombudsman will be considering the landlord’s handling of the resident’s subsequent complaints up to February 2022.
The resident made further complaints in November 2020, December 2020, and June 2021 which have not completed the landlord’s complaints process. While the resident has provided evidence of sending complaints in November and December 2020, it is unclear based on the evidence provided whether the landlord received them.
The landlord received the complaint sent in June 2021, and responded via its solicitors in July 2021. The response refers the resident to previous final response letters, but does not deal with all of the issues raised. For example, it referred to its stage two response to the resident’s April 2020 complaint, when some of the complaints related to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise and antisocial behaviour after that date. It was reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to that letter, as parts of the complaint had already been responded to in May 2020.
However this was, at least in part, a new complaint, which the landlord was required to respond to in line with its complaints policy. It did not do so, so there has been a service failure. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of any specific detriment this caused the resident, but considers that the landlord should apologise to the resident for that service failure.
With regard to the landlord’s stage one response of 25 November 2021 and stage two response of 2 February 2022, both of those responses were outside of the timeframe set out in its complaints policy. However, the landlord clarified to the Ombudsman at the time of the complaint that it needed to determine whether the issues included in the complaint were recent or historic issues, and whether they had already been dealt with in one of its previous complaint responses. It also made multiple attempts to discuss and clarify the complaint with the resident before issuing its final response, and informed the resident that it would need more time to issue its stage two response. While there was a delay, the landlord has demonstrated a reasonable reason for that delay, so the Ombudsman does not consider that the landlord acted inappropriately in the way it handled that complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration by the landlord with regard to its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration by the landlord with regard to its handling of reports that the resident was engaging in antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration by the landlord with regard to its handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been a service failure by the landlord with regard to its complaint handling.

Reasons

While the resident is dissatisfied that further action was not taken against the individual she reported to the landlord, this does not mean the landlord acted inappropriately or unreasonably. The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour in line with its antisocial behaviour policy. It also referred the resident to environmental health, and offered to install a CCTV camera to assist in gathering evidence which would allow it to take enforcement action. In the absence of any supporting evidence, it reasonably concluded that there was no further action it could take, and closed the case.
The landlord received reports that the resident had been engaging in antisocial behaviour, and was required to investigate those reports. It made the resident aware of the allegations and took steps to investigate the allegations and gather evidence. It issued a warning letter to the resident, and when the reports of antisocial behaviour stopped after it issued that warning, it closed the case. This was in line with its antisocial behaviour policy and standard industry practice.
The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct and explained the outcome of that investigation to the resident. Neither the outcome of that investigation nor the resident’s complaint that the landlord has provided inaccurate information to third parties fall within the Ombudsman’s remit to consider.
When responding to the complaint made in June 2021, the landlord referred the resident to previous final response letters. This was appropriate for those issues which had been dealt with in the previous final response letters. However, some of the issues raised occurred after those complaints were determined, and were therefore new complaints. The landlord should have responded to the new complaint points in line with its complaints process, but did not do so.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to issue a written apology to the resident for its service failure in complaint handling.
The landlord is to reply to this Service to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.