Yorkshire Housing Limited (202337453)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337453

Yorkshire Housing Limited

3 September 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Report that a fire door was being left open.
    3. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, and lives in a 1-bedroom flat.
  2. The resident has explained that he initially reported issues of ASB dating back to 2018. However, this investigation is related to reports from June 2021 onwards. The issues with ASB involved several different people who were not tenants of the landlord. The landlord had an arrangement to provide 2 flats within the resident’s block to a non-profit organisation who provided supported housing to vulnerable people. Each of the resident’s ASB reports were about tenants of the supported housing.
  3. The resident’s initial report of ASB in this period was on 10 June 2021. The resident reported that the occupant of the flat below him had been using drugs and that his flat had a strong smell of cannabis. He told the landlord that this was a daily occurrence. The resident also told the landlord that the fire door was left open at all times of the day.
  4. Between 19 July 2021 and 16 November 2021, the landlord exchanged communication with both the resident and supported housing company to try and resolve the ASB. Within this period the supported housing company told the landlord that the alleged perpetrator had denied all allegations. It was agreed by the landlord that an unannounced home visit would take place in an attempt to identify the ongoing ASB. However, on 16 November 2021 the landlord was told that the alleged perpetrator had left the property in mid-October 2021. The landlord closed the ASB case and told the resident it had reminded the supporting housing company to ensure it let the property sensitively with consideration of other residents.
  5. The resident reported a further incident of ASB related to noise on 11 July 2022. The landlord acknowledged the report the same day and advised somebody would be in touch to discuss the case.
  6. Between 19 July 2022 and 18 April 2023, the landlord again exchanged communication with both the resident and supported housing company to try and resolve the ASB. During this period the landlord asked the resident to keep a log of the noise nuisance and any other types of ASB, and to download a noise app to obtain relevant evidence. In October 2022 the resident also reported that the fire door was being left open and that this had resulted in trespassers a non-resident entering the block unauthorised.
  7. The landlord closed this ASB case on 18 April 2023 and told the resident that the supported housing company had completed its investigation of the ASB reports. However, based on the evidence and recordings provided, the supported housing company had advised could take no further action as there was no breach of the alleged perpetrator’s tenancy. In any event, the alleged perpetrator was believed to have abandoned the property.
  8. Another ASB report about noise was made by the resident on 10 October 2023. The landlord acknowledged the report the same day and advised it would contact the resident about this. Between 19 October 2023 and 28 November 2023, the resident reported a further 9 incidences of noise–related ASB. Noise app recordings were also provided by the resident during this time.
  9. On 30 November 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. The resident’s complaint said that:
    1. The issues of ASB dated back to 2018 and involved the 2 flats which were let by the supported housing company. He had raised 8 or 9 reports over this period and the same issues happened regardless of who the supported housing tenant was.
    2. The fire door was left open at all hours. He had previously provided photographic evidence of this.
    3. The agreement with the supported housing company was not working, but the landlord refused to admit this and had been unable to resolve the ongoing ASB concerns.
    4. The latest ASB report was being investigated by a manager, but he was having to chase several times for updates and communication generally about these issues was poor.
  10. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 December 2023 and provided a stage 1 response on 21 December 2023. It said that:
    1. It upheld the resident’s complaint as it had failed to keep him updated.
    2. The perpetrator causing the ASB was not a tenant of the landlord so it was limited in the action it could take. However, it would continue to work with the supported housing company to make sure relevant action was taken.
    3. The supported housing manager had visited the perpetrator and would continue to monitor the situation to build a case. Therefore, the resident should continue to take recordings via the app and note down any other types of ASB with dates and times of each incident.
    4. It offered £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  11. On 21 December 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. He advised that there were 3 points that had not been answered fully. These were:
    1. What the solution going forward with the perpetrator was, as these issues had been ongoing with various tenants of the supported housing company since 2018.
    2. The fire door issue had not been addressed and no resolution had been put forward.
    3. He felt £100 compensation was unfair due to the length of time he had been dealing with the ASB and the ongoing nature of the issues.
  12. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 2 January 2024 and provided its stage 2 response on 19 January 2024. The stage 2 response said that:
    1. The landlord had been correct to say that due to the perpetrator not being a tenant of the landlord it was limited in the direct action it could take. However, it was clear that the resolutions put forward had not resolved the root cause of the issue.
    2. It had reviewed its arrangement with the supported housing company and had offered them alternative accommodation elsewhere. This would mean the properties would come back under the landlord’s control and the supported housing tenants would leave before 29 January 2024. It would assess the properties and any new tenants would require full references.
    3. As it did not respond in a timely manner, and for the distress and inconvenience caused, it would offer £500 compensation for its actions related to the ASB.
    4. In relation to the fire door, it would issue a reminder to all tenants in the block of the appropriate use of the fire door. It had discussed alternative arrangements with its health and safety team, but these arrangements were not suitable.
    5. On 22 February 2024 the ASB case was closed as the properties were handed back to the landlord as ‘general needs’ properties.
  13. Since the stage 2 response the landlord has ended the relationship with the supported housing company and issued a general letter to residents about the fire door. However, the resident has advised that issues with ASB and the fire door are still happening.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is noted that there is a long history of ASB reported by the resident. However, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from June 2021 onwards which were considered during the landlord’s complaint responses. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme at the time that says, “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”.
  2. The resident’s formal complaint was raised with the landlord on 30 November 2023. This would mean that this Service would normally only investigate the landlord’s actions from 30 May 2023 onwards, as this is 6 months prior to the formal complaint being raised. However, the landlord as part of its complaint investigation looked at 3 reports of ASB from 10 June 2021 onwards. Therefore, the current investigation will cover the period from 10 June 2021 to the date of the stage 2 complaint response, 19 January 2024.
  3. In addition, in accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, any issues that the resident has experienced since the stage 2 complaint response on 19 January 2024 will not be considered as part of this investigation. This is because the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaint procedure. Therefore, any dissatisfaction the resident has with the landlord’s actions since it issued its stage 2 response can be addressed directly with the landlord using its complaint process if required. Following this, if the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s final response he has the option of referring these further complaints to this Service for investigation.

Reports of ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy says that its approach to ASB includes dealing promptly, proportionately and effectively with incidents and keeping the reporting party regularly updated where appropriate. The policy says that it understands that working closely with partner agencies is key to successful and prompt interventions.
  2. The landlord has a separate ASB policy for harassment which relates to all properties owned or managed by the landlord. The policy sets out that the landlord’s approach is to tell residents experiencing problems about the action it is taking, what the likely outcome will be, and what it is doing “every step of the way”, including timescales.
  3. The first report of ASB was made by the resident on 10 June 2021. While the landlord acknowledged the report the same day, the resident had to chase the landlord on 1 occasion before receiving a response from a case worker on 23 July 2021. This delay of over 1 month in contacting the resident was unsatisfactory and not in line with its policy of dealing with ASB issues promptly.
  4. This lack of prompt and effective communication continued as after the landlord had advised it had spoken to the supported housing company on 26 July 2021, it failed to update the resident again until 9 September 2021. This was after the resident had chased the landlord twice in August 2021. While it was positive that the landlord was liaising with the supported housing company to try and resolve the ASB issues, the failure to keep the resident updated was unreasonable. This failure caused some frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
  5. The landlord arranged to call the resident on 30 September 2021 to discuss a home visit to discuss the ASB case. This was another positive step and showed that the landlord was working with the resident and the supported housing company to try and come to a resolution in line with its ASB policy. However, the landlord did not follow through with any prompt action after this date, as the next update to the resident was not provided until 16 November 2021. The landlord advised the resident that the ASB case had been closed as the alleged perpetrator had moved out, but this delay of over 1 month before any update was provided was not acceptable and caused further frustration to the resident.
  6. On 11 July 2022 the resident made a second ASB report. The landlord’s initial steps between July and August 2022 in asking the resident to keep an incident log and liaising with the supported housing company were reasonable. It was in line with its policy to try and obtain evidence of the ASB before more serious action could be taken in respect of the alleged perpetrator.
  7. On 24 August 2022 the landlord updated the resident to advise that the alleged perpetrator had denied the reported ASB. However, no further action was taken in relation to the case until 21 September 2022 when the landlord met with the supported housing company and decided more evidence was required. This delay of around 1 month in taking any action was unreasonable. This was compounded by the failure of the landlord to tell the resident what it was doing, and the timescales involved. The landlord’s poor communication caused avoidable worry to the resident, and more frequent updates would have improved his experience and demonstrated the landlord was taking his concerns seriously.
  8. After the landlord’s request for incident logs on 21 September 2022, the resident responded on 13 October 2022 to say that he had lost faith in the landlord’s ability to take action and resolve the ASB. He asked the landlord a specific question about dealing with the root cause of the problem. However, the landlord failed to respond to the resident about this. Instead, the resident reported further ASB on 20 October 2022, 16 November 2022 and chased the landlord for an update on 1 December 2022 before an eventual response was provided on 23 December 2022. This delay of around 2 months was unreasonable and reinforced the resident’s view that the landlord was unable to deal with the ASB promptly and effectively.
  9. Following further discussions between the landlord and the supported housing company it was agreed that the resident should download a noise app to record the incidents of ASB where possible. This advice was relayed to the resident on 23 December 2023. This was a positive step by the landlord to try and obtain evidence of the ASB. However, it should not have taken 6 months for this to have been suggested. This indicates that the landlord lacked a clear plan of action which left the resident vulnerable to ASB over a sustained period.
  10. The resident advised the landlord on 11 January 2023 that he had sent 10 app recordings and asked what the next steps were. However, the landlord did not take any effective action in relation to this until 14 April 2023 when it contacted the supported housing company to discuss the resident’s recordings. This prevented the supported housing company from reviewing the noise recordings at a time when they were most relevant. The supported housing company itself even referred to the recordings being from December 2022 and not having more recent examples. This delay in acting meant that the resident was left in a situation without any effective support for roughly 3 months. This was an unreasonable delay which did not align with its ASB policy. This further delay caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience and reinforced his view that the landlord was failing to take his reports seriously.
  11. The final ASB report was made on 10 October 2023, and the landlord requested the resident provide evidence of noise via the noise app on 19 October 2023. Despite the resident responding the same day to say that noise recordings had already been provided, he had to make 2 further reports on 20 October and 10 November 2023 before the landlord got back in touch with him. This again followed similar failings with the 2 previous ASB reports and showed a lack of prompt and effective communication with the resident.
  12. The resident provided the landlord with 7 examples of ASB on 10 November 2023, and reported further ASB on 22, 25, 27 and 28 November 2023. During this period the landlord contacted the resident once by phone to discuss the incidents, but no plan of action was put in place as to how these issues would be dealt with. This was not consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy in contacting resident’s regularly with updates. This caused the resident further distress and inconvenience and led to his formal complaint on 30 November 2023.
  13. When the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 19 January 2024 it recognised that it had not dealt with the root causes of the resident’s ASB. It committed to finding an alternative arrangement with the supported housing company which would mean the relevant flats in the resident’s block would come back into the landlord’s control. This showed that the landlord recognised the history of ASB reported by the resident and came to a conclusion which not only looked at a resolution to the individual reports of ASB at that time, but also considered an overall resolution to help address the root cause of the ASB.
  14. While the landlord was limited in the initial action it could take due to the alleged perpetrators not being its tenants, it did regularly communicate with the supported housing company to try and resolve matters. This was in line with its policy of working closely with partner agencies. However, the landlord failed to communicate regularly with the resident, and there were delays in dealing with the ASB issues which reduced the effectiveness of any action it could take. The first 2 reported ASB issues were only resolved as the alleged perpetrators moved out of the supported housing property, and the landlord failed to take the history of ASB reports from 2018 onwards into account when considering potential resolutions to the ASB.
  15. There is also a lack of evidence to suggest any risk assessment took place to consider the risk to the resident and to support a plan of action or manage his expectations. It took the resident raising a formal complaint before the landlord seriously considered the suggestion that its arrangement with the supported housing company may need to be revisited. Taking all the circumstances into account, this amounts to maladministration.
  16. The resident has told the Ombudsman that he considers a refund of rent should be paid as a remedy to the landlord’s failings as he was unable to enjoy his home while the ASB was ongoing. However, in this instance a refund of rent would not be a fair remedy as the resident was not prevented from using his home and he was still able to utilise all rooms within his property. Instead, the impact to the resident was an emotional one consisting of distress, frustration and inconvenience.
  17. The landlord did offer the resident £500 for the distress and inconvenience it caused, which is in line with its own compensation policy for severe inconvenience and service failings. The Ombudsman has considered if this constitutes reasonable redress. Given the extent of the failings and the length of time these failings lasted, in the Ombudsman’s opinion a higher payment of compensation would be fair. In addition, the landlord’s offer appeared to only compensate for 1 aspect of its failings, when there were 2 failings in regard to delay and communication.
  18. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies says that where there has been maladministration that has had a significant impact on a resident then offers of between £600 and £1,000 should be considered. As the landlord failed to be consistent with its own ASB policy over a long period and failed to communicate effectively with the resident, the landlord will be ordered to pay the resident £800 (inclusive of the £500 already offered), broken down as:
    1. £400 for the delays in dealing with the ASB reports.
    2. £400 for the failure to communicate effectively with the resident.

Fire door

  1. The resident initially reported that the fire door was being kept open on 10 June 2021 and chased for a response to this on 23 July 2021. On 26 July 2021 the landlord advised that it would contact the tenant who was believed to be leaving the fire door open to try and resolve the issue. While this was a reasonable response for the landlord to provide, it took over 1 month to reply to the resident’s concern and take action. Given the integral role fire doors play in fire safety, the landlord should have acted more quickly in taking action to prevent potential dangers that this could have caused.
  2. The resident reported again that the fire door had been left open on 24 October 2022. He told the landlord that as a result of the door being open, a person had trespassed into the block and tried to sleep under the stairs. In response to this the landlord issued a general letter to all residents dated 26 October 2022 to remind them that fire doors must not be misused and that leaving them open could result in action being taken against them. This response to the fire door report was reasonable. The landlord acted quickly in response to the resident’s concern and took action to notify all residents of the importance of fire doors.
  3. A further report about the fire door was made on 22 November 2023 and in the resident’s formal complaint on 30 November 2023. However, no action to address this issue was taken until the landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaint process. This again showed a lack of prompt action, taking over 1 month to address the resident’s report. This caused the resident further frustration at a time when he was already losing faith in the landlord’s ability to deal with his concerns.
  4. Within the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it advised that it had considered altering the fire door system. It had considered adding a trigger to the door, so that when it opened it set off an alarm, or adding a seal to the door. However, the landlord decided against these options at the time as it believed it may cause additional problems such as noise nuisance with the alarm, or an unsecure door if the seal was broken. It instead opted to issue another general letter to tenants to remind them of their responsibilities around fire doors. This decision and the considerations taken by the landlord were reasonable and showed that it was looking at ways to appropriately address the fire door issue.
  5. When considering all the circumstances, this amounts to service failure. While there were delays in responding to the resident’s reports about the fire door, these delays were short lived, and the landlord did take some action to address the issue which was reasonable. Based on this the landlord should make a payment of £100 to address the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay. This is in line with both the landlord’s and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies for failings that did not have a significant effect on the overall outcome of a case.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint policy. It will acknowledge and log complaints at stage 1 within 5 working days and respond fully within 10 working days of logging the complaint. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 days of the request to escalate and respond within 20 days of the request.
  2. The landlord’s complaint responses at both stage 1 and stage 2 of its procedure were reasonable, and its actions in dealing with the resident’s complaint was fair. The landlord provided both its responses within the timescales set out in its policy and dealt fully with each issue of complaint in its stage 2 response. The response set out clearly what its decision was in relation to each aspect of the resident’s complaint and offered appropriate resolutions for the substantive issues.
  3. The resident has told the Ombudsman that he was unhappy with the level of compensation offered by the landlord in its stage 2 response. The landlord offered £500 for its actions in relation to how it had handled the resident’s ASB reports. While the Ombudsman considers a higher level of compensation would be fair based on this investigation, this does not mean the consideration by the landlord and its actions when dealing with the complaint and offer of compensation were unreasonable.
  4. The landlord’s considerations were in line with its own policy on deciding compensation. In its compensation policy the landlord sets out that it can offer up to £500 for severe inconvenience without contacting its claims team. When assessing its own actions, the landlord used its compensation matrix and decided that the impact to the resident was severe and offered a level of compensation which it believed was appropriate. Therefore, based on the actions the landlord took to deal with the resident’s complaint there was no maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report that a fire door was being left open.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident to acknowledge the failings identified.
    2. Pay the resident £900 in compensation, inclusive of the £500 already offered, broken down as:
      1. £400 for the delays in dealing with the ASB reports.
      2. £400 for the failure to communicate effectively with the resident.
      3. £100 for the delay in dealing with the fire door issue.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is also ordered to contact the resident to:
    1. Discuss his concerns about ongoing ASB and develop an action plan to share with the resident. It should include within the action plan:
      1. Any key timescales for when the landlord will take action and highlight other agencies who may assist in any investigation.
      2. An outline of the resident’s responsibility in terms of recording and sharing evidence, the types of evidence required, and how often the resident needs to update the landlord.
      3. How any evidence will be used and shared.
    2. Confirm if the fire door issue has been resolved, and if not, consider what further action it should take.