Southern Housing (202216117)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216117

Southern Housing Group 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 reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

2. The resident has occupied the property, a 2-bedroom bungalow, since 2016 on an assured non-shorthold tenancy. From around 2019 the resident and his partner reported various issues with some of their neighbours, and the landlord held meetings with the police, environmental health and the local authority regarding this. A safeguarding action plan was put in place in April 2019.
3. On 1 October 2021, a neighbour made an ASB report against the resident and his partner relating to verbal abuse she claimed she suffered when she asked them to move a hosepipe. The landlord notified the resident of the complaint on 4 October 2021 and spoke with him on 6 October 2021. He said that the neighbour had been abusive to them. An action plan was put in place to monitor the situation and the landlord spoke with another neighbour about the incident, who indicated issues were being caused by the resident. The landlord advised the police on 6 October 2021 that it was investigating the matter and the police confirmed it had been made aware of the incident also.
4. The landlord spoke with all parties and monitored the situation between the resident and the neighbour until December 2021. It also worked with the police as it was investigating CCTV footage from the incident. In December 2021 the police advised the landlord it was closing its case as the evidence did not prove either party had abused the other, and the landlord wrote to both parties confirming no further action would be taken, on 17 December 2021.
5. The resident complained to the landlord on 21 February 2022 that:
   1. The letter of 17 December 2021 said, “As you are aware verbal abuse is a breach of your tenancy and I ask that you’re mindful of your neighbour.” As he was found to not be at fault, this statement should not have been made.
   2. The landlord found no evidence of the neighbour swearing, but the police investigated the matter and said it heard swearing.
   3. The person that wrote the letter should have consulted with other people involved in his case to put some context around what had been happening.
   4. It should have communicated with the resident via their point of contact due to their disabilities.
   5. Communication was not as good as it should be and should be reviewed.
6. The complaint was acknowledged on 23 February 2022. The Neighbourhood Manager spoke with the resident and his partner on 28 February 2022 to confirm the complaint, and said it would be investigated. The resident explained that the incident with the neighbour swearing had been reported to the police and the police had suggested that, while mediation was positive, it would be better to consider after the investigation had taken place.
7. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 March 2022. It did not uphold the complaint and said:
   1. The tone of the letter was not inappropriate or threatening.
   2. The police confirmed on 14 December 2021 that it was no longer investigating and there was no evidence of swearing, so it closed its case.
   3. There was collaboration in the drafting of the letter. The point of contact was set up for the resident to be able to contact one person, to make this an easier process for him so he did not have to call into the contact centre and speak to different people. The agreement did not include landlord staff having to use the point of contact when they needed to speak to the resident. There was no agreement in place that all communication would go through the point of contact, but the point of contact was made aware that the letter was going out to the resident.
   4. Action points and procedures were being adhered to.
8. On 15 April 2022, the resident responded to the landlord setting out where he disagreed with its findings. He asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 on 25 April 2022 and the landlord acknowledged that the following day.
9. The complaint panel met on 29 June 2022 and the resident was sent a copy of the report on 13 July 2022. It said the landlord’s closure letter did have an element of a warning, but no ASB had been found. Information had been shared between staff, but the person who responded to the complaint did need to speak with the resident about the case.
10. It went on to explain that the Police had recently confirmed the resident had complained about the officer who handled the investigation, and the police advised that the case was handled satisfactorily. However, it agreed any new complaints made would be dealt with by another officer. The police had not reopened the case and would put that in writing. It was sorry the resident found the closure letter intimidating and threatening, this was not the intention, but it accepted the letter should not have included a warning as there was no ASB found during the investigation. It was also sorry for the delay in viewing a USB stick. It could look to re-open the case if the issues were ongoing, and make a referral to the mediation service.
11. The landlord spoke with the resident on 20 July 2022 about his concerns regarding his neighbours’ behaviour. It was agreed that he would report the matter to the police and the housing officer contacted both neighbours the following day. The resident and his partner were informed of the action taken on 12 August 2022 and the resident asked the landlord what further action would be taken. It explained, on 15 August 2022, that nothing further would be done, as there was no evidence of ASB. However, it said they should send any evidence in going forward to support their claims of ASB.

Assessment

12. The resident’s complaint raised some specific issues regarding the landlord’s handling of ASB. It is clear the police found no evidence of the resident or the neighbour swearing during the hosepipe incident on 1 October 2021, so no further action was taken by them against either party. However, the landlord’s letter of 17 December 2021 clearly offended the resident, as he felt it was warning him about his behaviour.
13. While the landlord initially found no issue with the wording of the letter, when the complaint was escalated, it accepted that the letter should not have contained a warning, and it was therefore appropriate that it issued an apology at that time. The Ombudsman appreciates the resident was offended by the comment in the landlord’s letter, but the landlord did make it clear he was not responsible for any swearing. This was therefore a minor issue that was adequately resolved by way of the apology offered.
14. The evidence shows that the police made the landlord aware in December 2021 that, having investigated the ASB complaint and viewed CCTV footage, it found no evidence of swearing by either party. The landlord also carried out its own investigation by interviewing the parties involved and decided to take no further action.
15. The resident has said he challenged the police’ investigation, which is his right, but that sits separately to his concerns about the landlord. Although he has said the police agreed to re-investigate the matter, no evidence has been provided to that effect. Even if the police did agree to review the matter, it does not alter the fact that it made a finding in December 2021 and it was reasonable for the landlord to make its decision to take no further action, based on the outcome of both its own, and the police’s investigations at the time. If the view of the police changes in the future, and the landlord is made aware of that, it will be for the landlord to decide whether to re-open the case and investigate further.
16. The resident complained that the landlord should have looked at the wider picture in terms of ASB and that the person that wrote to him in December 2021 with its findings, should have collaborated with other people who had been involved in his ASB case in the past. The Ombudsman has been provided with evidence which shows there was an action plan in place since 2019 to support the resident with his reports of ASB, and the landlord had put people in place for him to liaise with.
17. The landlord has said there was some collaboration between landlord staff prior to it issuing its response in December 2021. The lack of evidence means it is not possible to know for certain if that was the case. However, it is important to recognise that the landlord had access to all information it held about ASB as reported by the resident and his partner if it needed to refer to it.
18. The investigation carried out at that time was prompted by a report from the neighbour about the resident’s behaviour, so it was not forming a view on ASB in general, but on the allegation made in October 2021. As a result, it was appropriate for the landlord to focus on those specific events. Based on the information provided, the landlord liaised with the necessary parties and carried out a thorough investigation, working alongside the police, before sharing its findings.
19. In terms of whether the landlord should have communicated with the resident through the point of contact, the landlord has said this was a verbal arrangement and the resident was contacted every Thursday and could also use WhatsApp to liaise with the point of contact. The action plan put in place in February 2019 said, “xx will remain the sole point of contact for [the resident and his partner].” Someone else was named as the contact if xx was absent and it goes on to state, “We’ll ensure any contact is responded to in line with our service standards”.
20. The resident has referred to the action plan being updated to say he would be given 5 days notice of any appointments using his preferred method of contact. He says he received a telephone call that he found difficult to deal with and it would have been reasonable for him to have someone in conference call to support him.
21. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident and his partner are vulnerable, and although they were provided with one point of contact to liaise with to make things easier for them, no evidence has been provided to indicate there was an agreement that all correspondence from the landlord would be sent via that person. In fact, the Ombudsman has seen that emails, letters and telephone calls were made to the resident from other members of landlord staff, and no issue was raised about that.
22. It is noted that the resident received a telephone call which he found hard to deal with, and it would have been reasonable for him to stop the call and ask for additional support if needed, or to be communicated with in a different way. The landlord could have then made alternative arrangements with the resident if needed. There is nothing in the action plan that says how all contact is made; therefore, the landlord’s service was reasonable.
23. It may not be possible for the landlord to arrange a conference call as suggested by the resident, but it would be prudent for it to liaise with him to ensure his communication preferences and support needs are still being met by the existing action plan. This should then satisfy his wider concern over the landlord ensuring his needs are met in line with its policies and procedures.
24. The landlord’s ASB procedure says when ASB is reported, where a resident has vulnerabilities, extra effort should be made to ensure they understand its process and what to expect during the investigation, including the possible outcome. Where external support is in place for the resident, it must ensure the resident’s support officer/team are kept updated where the resident has consented for this.
25. In this case, the landlord had a safeguarding plan for the resident and there was an arrangement in place for the resident to have a point of contact. Therefore, it was mindful of his vulnerabilities and took appropriate steps to manage those. While the Ombudsman appreciates the strength of feeling the resident has over what happened, it is satisfied that the landlord’s service was reasonable.

Determination (decision)

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Recommendations

27. The landlord is recommended to review the action plan with the resident to ensure it meets his needs.