Home Group Limited (202311104)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311104

Home Group Limited

30 August 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 response to the resident’s concerns about its handling of:
    1. His reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbours.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. He has lived in the 3-bedroom property with his family since 2015.
  2. On 22 September 2022, the resident complained to his landlord that his reports from May 2022 of ASB relating to children and adults causing a nuisance had been ignored.
  3. In the stage 1 response from late January 2023, the landlord acknowledged that it could have been more proactive and supportive in its response to the resident’s reports. It advised that it had since delivered on actions agreed shortly after the resident complained, including delivering an estate-wide letter which asked residents to give consideration to neighbours when playing ball games.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 1 February 2023 because he said there had been little progress on the actions agreed and he had not received the stage 1 response.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, dated 29 March 2023, it advised that it found that reasonable actions had been taken at stage 1 to address the resident’s concerns and his reports of ASB. It also referred to a recent incident involving the resident and said the Police had advised that he had contributed to the tension.
  6. On the day of the final response, the resident asked to complain about the content of it because he said it contained inaccurate information. His request though was refused on the grounds that the complaint response was final. The landlord closed the ASB case in late June 2023 because the resident confirmed that he was no longer being caused disruption from other tenants playing ball games.
  7. The resident referred his complaint to this Service because he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses, particularly the stage 2 which he advised included misleading information. He said his family have been caused distress by the events he complained about and are now seeking to relocate. As an outcome the resident advised he wants an apology and compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. After the complaint process ended in March 2023, the resident reported further incidents of ASB relating to nuisance parking and deliberate damage to his property. He complained about the landlord’s responses to these matters in September 2023 and completed its complaints process in November 2023. He referred this to the Ombudsman in March 2024, advising that he would be happy for his complaints to be combined into 1 investigation. While it is understandable that the resident has suggested this approach, the more recent events were not part of the original complaint the resident referred to this Service. It was correct though for the resident to allow the landlord the opportunity to investigate the new occurrences of ASB within its procedures in the first instance and then through its formal complaints process because he remained dissatisfied.
  2. Paragraph 35 of the Scheme requires the Ombudsman to be satisfied that a complaint meets the criteria for it to be considered “duly made”. The resident’s new complaint has not been through the necessary checks to determine if it meets the criteria. Therefore, the matters that the resident complained about in September 2023 will be investigated separately subject to satisfying the criteria for it to be considered duly made. This report will only focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of nuisance caused by ball games.

Response to ASB

  1. According to the landlord’s ASB policy at the time, its focus was on early intervention to stop problem behaviour from escalating, and to do this it used a “range of tools and powers”, although it did not specify what these were. However, the policy indicated that it acted in partnership with other agencies, which according to best practice would usually involve the Police and the local authority. The policy also indicated that the landlord would take “a supportive approach” to alleged victims and perpetrators.
  2. No records from before June 2022 were provided in the evidence. However, the resident’s account that he had been reporting ASB relating to children playing ball games since May 2022 is not disputed. It is confirmed by the stage 1 response which advised that the landlord received the initial report on 16 May 2022. The available evidence shows the resident reported an incident in September 2022 regarding his neighbour’s children and adult partner which resulted in his wife being threatened.  On both occasions, the landlord signposted the resident to contact the Police. An estate inspection was also carried out and an existing “no ball game” sign was restored to be visible.
  3. As part of the stage 1 investigation, the landlord reviewed its handling of the resident’s reports. It concluded that it could have been more proactive and given the resident better support. This acknowledgement was appropriate because, while the landlord did take some action, there is more its ASB policy said it should have done. For example, there is no evidence that a risk assessment was completed, which the policy stated was used to determine what level of priority to give reports. Undertaking a risk assessment would also have enabled staff to understand how the resident was being affected and to inform what support it should offer.
  4. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code) sets out in clause 6.1 how a landlord should approach remedying its mistakes: “Where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right.” Suggested remedies can include acknowledging errors, providing an explanation, apologising, changing policies or procedures, or compensation.
  5. Prior to concluding the stage 1 in late January 2023, a housing manager met with the resident in November 2022 and agreed actions with him to address the ASB. The stage 1 response confirmed that these actions had been completed and said that the resident would continue to receive support from his local housing officer. It also advised that additional training had been given to staff regarding the management of ASB. These outcomes were in line with the remedies encouraged in the Code.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 in February 2023 because he said the landlord had not delivered on the agreed actions. In subsequent correspondence to the staff member investigating his complaint, he indicated that he was expecting more or different actions to be taken than those mentioned in the stage 1, but he did not specify what these were. In the landlord’s stage 2 response from the end of March 2023, it said it was satisfied that, having identified in the original investigation that it could have done more, appropriate action had since been taken.
  7. There is no evidence, that this Service has seen, that the landlord agreed to carry out other actions than those confirmed in the initial complaint response. Furthermore, the landlord had also written to the resident on 5 December 2022 setting out the agreed actions from the face-to-face meeting a few days prior. There is no indication that the resident challenged what was written or requested further interventions.
  8. The available records also demonstrate that the landlord did fulfil the agreed actions, including sending an estate-wide letter in early January 2023 warning of the repercussions to tenants where damage to property was caused by ball games. They also show that the local housing officer liaised with the local authority’s community safety team, who agreed to patrol the estate if it received reports of an incident. The resident was also updated by his housing officer, who informed him of the support available through the community safety team. Therefore, the landlord’s decision that it had carried out appropriate actions to rectify its failings early on in the process is supported by the evidence.
  9. In the stage 2 the landlord referred to an incident that involved the Police, which the records suggest occurred in early March 2023. The resident was unhappy that the landlord had referenced this because it was not related to his original complaint. He also said there were factual inaccuracies relating to what the Police were reported to have advised the landlord. The available case notes indicate that the incident was related to the reported problem of nuisance arising from ball games. It was not then unreasonable for the landlord to reference this in its stage 2 response, which was a review of its response to the incidences of alleged ASB. While it is noted that the resident disputed the landlord’s account, he has not provided any evidence to the contrary.
  10. Following the end of the complaints process, the ASB case notes do not record any further incidents relating to ball games. The resident also confirmed in June 2023 that he was no longer being disturbed by this issue. While the resident experienced further problems with ASB, which are the subject of a separate complaint, this is not an indication of a failing in this particular case. It is undisputed that the landlord could have done better to investigate and support the resident when he initially reported the ASB. However, the actions it took after the resident complained were sufficient to put things right, both in terms of addressing the ASB under the landlord’s policy and in remedying the complaint.

Associated complaint

  1. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 22 September 2022. It issued a stage 1 response on 31 January 2023. He subsequently asked to escalate to stage 2 on 1 February 2023 and the landlord sent its response on 29 March 2023.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time stated that it aimed to respond “fairly, politely, in a timely manner” and to meet the standards of the Ombudsman’s Code. It therefore said it would look to respond at stage 1 within 10-working days and within 20-working days at stage 2, which are timescales set in the Code. However, both responses were significantly delayed, with the stage 2 response taking over 3 times longer than the projected timescale.
  3. The Code requires landlords to keep residents regularly updated on an investigation. However, this did not happen at either stage. Furthermore, the resident contacted the landlord several times before it acknowledged his request to escalate to stage 2. This was clearly unreasonable, particularly given his original complaint was about feeling ignored and unsupported by the landlord. It was also not in line with the landlord’s standards to treat resident’s fairly and politely and was not in keeping with the spirit of the Code.
  4. As the landlord has not acknowledged failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint or taken any steps to put things right, a determination of maladministration has been made and orders to remedy the impact. However, no orders to demonstrate learning from the complaint have been made in this case because the landlord has recently been asked to review its handling of complaints under a different investigation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is required to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the delays in responding to his complaint.
    2. Pay the resident £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience from the delays and poor communication in the handling of his complaint.
  2. The evidence the landlord has complied with this order should be shared with this Service within 4 weeks of this report.