East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202118752)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118752

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

18 October 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The resident has mental health conditions which the landlord is aware of.
On 25 October 2021 the landlord served the resident and her neighbour a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) following reports of antisocial behaviour. On 4 November 2021, the resident complained to the landlord about the conduct of the landlord’s ASB officer and its ‘failure’ to deal with the neighbour’s behaviour in a timely manner. The landlord provided a response to the complaint on 17 November 2021.
On 15 July 2022 the resident asked the landlord to respond to her complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process. In summary, she said that she still wished to pursue the complaint about the conduct of the landlord’s ASB officer and their lack of professionalism. She wanted answers as to why they did not believe that her neighbour had threatened her with a knife on 7 September 2021. In addition, she stated that she could not understand why the landlord needed diary sheets with dates and times of incidents as she had provided it with numerous videos showing what had happened. She felt that the landlord had failed to protect her, and that the situation had had a significant impact on her mental health. She further questioned why she had been served with a NOSP without warning. As a resolution she wanted the landlord to apologise and rescind the NOSP.
On 23 August 2022 following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint within 10 working days. In addition, the resident informed the landlord that she had reported abuse from her neighbour for 6 years and that nothing had been done. She felt that the ASB officer had not dealt with her reports appropriately. She wanted the landlord to resolve the ASB issues and for it to discipline the ASB officer. Further, she asked why her previous complaint was not dealt with formally at stage 1 or 2.
On 8 September 2022 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. In summary, it said it would visit her the following week with a new case handler to go through her concerns and devise an action plan. It apologised if she felt that the ASB officer had not treated her with respect and stated that it had moved her case to another ‘case handler’.
On 4 November 2022 the landlord closed the ASB case due to receiving no further reports. On 18 January 2023, the resident told the landlord that she had not heard anything from it regarding the case and that she had statements from other residents about her neighbour’s behaviour. The landlord responded on 1 February 2022 and informed the resident that as it had not received any further reports it had closed the case. It stated that it had undertaken visits to the area and spoken to residents to establish if there was any other information it needed to be aware of. It apologised for not communicating this to her and offered her compensation of £100.
The resident declined this offer and stated that the landlord had not visited any of the neighbours and had failed to update her on what it had done to resolve the matter. On 10 March 2023, the resident told the landlord that she wanted her neighbour to be moved, as well as confirmation that she would not lose her home. In addition, she asked for a meeting with the landlord, police, council, and her neighbours. Overall, she felt that the landlord had not safeguarded her.
On 24 March 2023 the landlord issued its final response. In summary, it said:
1. The ASB case against her neighbour was closed in November 2022 due to a lack of reports and no new information had been received.
2. It had not received any further reports from the resident or other residents in the area and added that no action would be taken against her neighbour.
3. That communication regarding closing the case had not been made clear and the offer of £100 compensation was still available.
4. It was unable to guarantee that her tenancy would be safeguarded as she was under investigation by the police.
5. As the ASB case was closed and there were no recent reports, it would not call a multi-agency meeting at this stage.
6. That mediation was still available to her and that she could also raise a community trigger.
7. It was important that all incidents were reported with times and dates along with details on how the behaviour affected the resident so that its officers could take proportionate action.
8. It was sorry that she did not feel believed and that it had assigned a different officer to her case to ensure she felt heard.
In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, she said that the landlord had failed to deal with her abusive neighbour in a timely manner. She stated that the landlord had lied about carrying out house-to-house enquiries and she was unhappy that she had not been believed about being threatened by her neighbour with a knife. Further, she stated that her calls had been ignored by the landlord and that it had taken a long time to deal with her complaint. She added that she has mental health problems and indicated that the landlord did not take this into consideration.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of ASB

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:

a. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;

b. Put things right, and;

c. Learn from outcomes.

The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
When assessing complaints about the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has adequately investigated the reported issues and taken appropriate and proportionate action in line with its policies and procedures and that it has acted fairly and reasonably in all the circumstances.
At the beginning of August 2021, the landlord spoke with the resident and confirmed that it had viewed video footage that showed the neighbour being verbally abusive towards other residents on the street. The landlord also received a report that the resident had used a racial slur towards the neighbour. In response, the landlord sent warning letters to both the neighbour and the resident. This was a reasonable approach to take and the landlord acted in line with its ASB policy which states that it will seek to resolve ASB at the earliest stage using non-legal remedies such as warning letters.
In early September 2021, the resident made further reports of ASB against her neighbour. This included reports of them waving a knife towards her. The resident also admitted to making a monkey noise towards her neighbour. On 25 October 2021, having sought legal advice, the landlord issued both the resident and the neighbour with a NOSP. Given the circumstances, this was a proportionate approach. The landlord again, acted in line with its ASB policy which states that where appropriate it will consider the use of legal remedies such as a NOSP to resolve ASB. It was also appropriate for the landlord to seek legal advice before taking this action. There was also evidence that it had sought further information from the police regarding these incidents. Again, this was an appropriate action to take.
After issuing the NOSP the landlord visited the resident to explain its actions. In early November 2021, the resident complained about the conduct of the ASB officer during this visit. Specifically, she asserted that the ASB officer had suggested she was lying about being threatened with a knife. The landlord responded to these concerns promptly. It disputed this assertion and provided a detailed response to her claims. While it is impossible for the Ombudsman to confirm one way or another what was said during this visit, the landlord’s response explained its position clearly and its response was sympathetic to the resident’s concerns.
On 1 February 2022 following a multi-agency meeting the landlord informed the resident in writing that it was unable to take further action on her ASB case due to a lack of evidence. The landlord acted fairly by participating in this multi-agency meeting and this showed that it was taking the situation seriously. Additionally, it acted in line with its policy which states it will work in partnership with other agencies to create clear actions for dealing with issues of ASB. It also advised the resident on what type of evidence was needed to pursue this matter further. It stated that it would need dates and times of the incidents and/or noise recordings. It records also indicated that it provided the resident with diary sheets to complete. This was appropriate advice from the landlord, and it provided an opportunity for the resident to provide further evidence.
The landlord’s September 2022 stage 1 response stated that it would visit the resident with a new case handler and devise an action plan in line with its ASB policy and procedure. Given the resident’s concerns, this was a reasonable approach to take. The landlord’s records also indicated that following the resident’s complaint it canvassed for witnesses within a reasonable timescale. Again, this was a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that it completed an action plan with the resident, as it agreed it would. This was a failure on the part of the landlord.
At the beginning of November 2022, the landlord closed the case as there had been no further reports of ASB from the resident. While it was appropriate for the landlord to close the case, it failed to inform the resident of this. This led to the resident chasing the landlord for an update on 18 January 2023. The resident was subsequently informed, in writing, on 1 February 2023 that her case had been closed. It should have informed the resident within a reasonable timescale that the case was closed. Instead, it took the landlord almost 2 months to advise her of this. This was contrary to its ASB policy which states that it will maintain regular contact with residents until the case is closed. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord apologised for this error and offered £100 compensation. Further, it stated that it had visited and spoken to other residents in the area to establish if there was any other information that it needed to be aware of and advised the resident to send in any evidence that she had. This was a reasonable response from the landlord, and it acted fairly by trying to ‘put things right’ for the resident. Moreover, it was appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident to send in any new evidence for it to assess.
In the resident’s subsequent escalation request she felt that the landlord had lied about visiting any of her neighbours and asserted that it had not carried out house-to-house enquiries. Although there was no evidence in the landlord’s records of ‘house-to-house enquiries’, the landlord’s ASB records showed that it was in contact with neighbours throughout the duration of the case. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that what the resident was told by the landlord was incorrect.
In the resident’s complaint to this service, she said that she was being ignored by the landlord and that her calls to it had fallen on ‘deaf ears’. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to reconcile this. During the period of the complaint, the landlord’s records showed that the resident had not reported any more incidents of ASB to it. Furthermore, her request for an update on the case in January 2023 was responded to within a reasonable timescale and the advice provided to her was appropriate in the circumstances.
Overall, the Ombudsman considers that the offer of £100 redress was satisfactory in ‘putting things right’ for the resident for the failures identified in this report. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that compensation between £50-£100 should be considered where there is service failure that has caused distress or inconvenience to the resident. The landlord therefore made an offer which was in accordance with this service’s guidance and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, proportionately reflected the level of detriment.
However, it is noted that in May 2023 the resident raised a new report of harassment from her neighbour where she was advised by the landlord that the Ombudsman would be the ‘best department’ to look at the issues and that it would be closing the case. This was an inappropriate response. The landlord should respond and investigate any new issues brought to it by residents in line with its policies and procedures. In view of this, a recommendation is made below.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. Further, it states that “If any part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1 it will be progressed to stage 2 of our complaint’s procedure”.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord about the handling of her reports of ASB on 15 July 2022. While the landlord acknowledged this the same day, it failed to formally respond to her. This led to the resident approaching the Ombudsman for assistance at the end of August 2022. The landlord formally responded to her complaint on 8 September 2022. This was over 1 month outside of its policy timescales. This would have caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 February 2023 offering her £100 compensation for communication failings when closing her ASB case, however, this was not a formal complaint response. The resident responded on 6 February 2023 declining the offer and expressing further dissatisfaction about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB. Yet, the landlord failed to escalate her complaint. This led to the resident, again, seeking advice from this service. While it was appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident what she was looking for as an outcome, this should have not prevented it from escalating her complaint to stage 2. The landlord failed to act in line with its own policy in this respect. This would have caused further frustration to the resident.
Overall, it took the landlord almost 2 months to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and over 6 weeks to respond to her complaint at stage 2. These were avoidable delays. Moreover, the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the complaint handling errors in its formal responses. Its response also failed to address the impact this situation was having on her mental health, despite this being raised as a significant issue in her initial July 2022 complaint. This amounts to service failure from the landlord.
In light of this, an order for remedy is made below, considering both the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The landlord’s policy suggests £50 to £250 compensation is appropriate for instances of service failure that has had some impact on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must, within the next four weeks:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £150 for the frustration and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
3. Review the complaint handling in this case, with reference to the failings identified in this report, 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 review.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident and ascertain if she requires any support for her vulnerabilities.
It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident, investigate, and respond to any new reports of ASB in line with its ASB policy.
It is recommended that the landlord pay the £100 compensation offered in its final response if it has not already done so.