Sage Housing Limited (SHL) (202225956)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225956

Sage Housing Limited (SHL)

24 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord with the tenancy beginning December 2021. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident’s tenancy agreement says that there is a managing agent (the agent) who acts on the landlord’s behalf and has responsibility for managing the running of the property.
The resident reported to the agent, issues of ASB from a neighbour, who will be referred to as the neighbour throughout this report.
On 29 September 2022, the resident reported to the agent that the neighbour had been threatening towards her by shouting and being abusive. She said the police were called as someone had bashed on her front door.
On 14 October 2022, the agent sent the resident a teams invite. However, evidence shows this was cancelled by the agent. The resident made a further 2 reports in October 2022 of threatening behaviour from the neighbour. She also requested permission to install a ring doorbell.
On 22 November 2022, the resident requested to raise a formal complaint with the agent. She also chased a response on 28 November 2022. The resident said that:
1. She had experienced harassment and intimidation from the neighbour since September 2022.
2. She had emailed the landlord multiple times in October 2022 but was ignored.
3. She was worried for the safety of her family.
On 7 December 2022, the resident made a further report to the agent of intimidating behaviour from the neighbour. She also chased a response to her complaint of November 2022. It has been evidenced that an auto reply was sent to the resident saying the agent was receiving a high volume of emails which was causing a delay.
Between January and February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord 3 times, reporting further ASB and chasing a response to her formal complaint.
The case notes show that the landlord contacted the resident on 7 February 2023 following a poor satisfaction survey. It went on to say that the resident advised there were “remaining issues” that the agent had not resolved.
In January and February 2023, the resident sent 5 emails outlining her dissatisfaction with how her reports had been handled by the agent and said she had requested a community trigger. She also advised there was police involvement following an incident with the neighbour, with bail conditions being put in place. The agent sent acknowledgments to 2 of her emails, explaining that it had tried to call her without success. It also said it would raise a formal complaint.
The agent sent its stage 1 response on 13 March 2023 outlining the concerns the resident raised. This included a timeline of events, confirming the emails where the resident did not receive a response. It outlined its accepted failings and said it would be providing staff with training. It also offered the resident £250 compensation.
The resident remained unhappy with the response and escalated matters to stage 2 on 20 March 2023. The agent sent its stage 2 response on 13 April 2023 and reoffered the £250 compensation. It said that it accepted it had not returned the resident’s calls or emails and should have notified her it was closing the case.
The resident advised this service that she moved out of the property in February 2024. She said no real action was taken until she raised a formal complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The landlord has explained to this service that there was a managing agent in place at the time of the resident’s complaint. It was responsible for managing the resident’s ASB cases and complaint responses on its behalf. The landlord took back the management of the resident’s ASB case on 9 October 2023. Furthermore, it said that as of 15 January 2024 it now manages all ASB cases and complaints in-house.
The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction guidance says a member landlord is responsible for the actions of a managing agent, whether or not the agent is a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Therefore, any failures by the managing agent are also considered failures by the landlord. This assessment distinguishes between the landlord and the managing agent for ease of reading.
This Service’s spotlight report on managing agents says that “managing agents directly appointed by landlords to discharge their duties are considered by the Ombudsman to be an extension of the landlord itself, and as such we would expect landlords to monitor performance and take appropriate action to address poor performance as if the service was in house”.
This Service acknowledges that this was a difficult situation for the resident and recognises that the issues reported to the landlord have caused her significant distress. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB; therefore, our investigation will consider the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

The agent (‘the agent’) had its own ASB policy at the time of the complaint which has been applied in this case. The landlord implemented its own ASB policy in March 2024 which was after the events of this investigation.
On 29 September 2022, the resident contacted the agent saying the neighbour had been abusive and threatened her. She provided a police reference number as police attended following the incident. There are no case notes to evidence that this report was responded to. This was not appropriate, and it was a missed opportunity for an early intervention. This is despite its ASB policy saying it will attempt to resolve disputes early using non-legal interventions.
The agent also failed to adhere to its ASB policy that says it will acknowledge new urgent reports of ASB within 1 working day and non-urgent new reports of ASB within 5 working days.
The agent further failed to complete a risk assessment matrix as per its policy, which is used to assess the severity and impact on residents. Failure to do this meant it was unable to respond and prioritise the residents reports in accordance with the policy.
The landlord had advised this service that teams meetings were held on 14 and 30 October 2022. However, there were no case notes provided as to the details or outcome. The resident provided evidence that the meeting of 14 October 2022 was cancelled by the agent.
It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. In this case, the evidence has not been comprehensive and therefore we cannot conclude that these meetings took place.
On 29 and 30 October 2022 the resident made further reports of ASB in relation to shouting and threatening behaviour by the neighbour. She requested to install a video doorbell. No response was provided until 18 January 2024 which was not appropriate.
Despite the 3 separate reports made by the resident no action plan was completed by the agent. This is contrary to the agent’s ASB policy which says it will issue a written action plan to all complainants of ASB when a case was opened. Furthermore, by completing an action plan, the agent could have managed the resident’s expectations as to whether there was any action it could take or not.
On 22 November 2022, the resident sent 2 emails to the agent, reporting further ASB from the neighbour in the form of shouting and name calling. She said she “wanted this taken further” and copied in the local council and MP. The agent responded saying it forwarded the emails to the manager to investigate.
There is no evidence that this was properly investigated or responded to which is not appropriate. This is in direct contrast to the agent’s ASB policy which says the case manager will keep residents informed regularly about the action being taken.
The resident contacted the agent again on 28 November and 7 December 2022 saying she was experiencing further intimidating behaviour. She also chased a response to her complaint of 22 November 2022. No response was provided, instead an auto reply was sent, saying it was receiving large volumes of emails and there would be a delay in responding.
This was not appropriate as it failed to evidence that any meaningful responses were provided to the resident following her 6 emails between September 2022 and December 2022.
On 13 and 25 January 2023 and 4 February 2023 the resident contacted the agent. Again, no response was provided which was not appropriate and not in line with its policy.
The resident made the landlord aware of the ASB on 13 January 2023, explaining it had been ongoing since September 2022. It has also been evidenced that on 7 February 2023 the landlord was made aware of the resident’s dissatisfaction with how her ASB case was being managed by the agent. Furthermore, she sent an email on 9 February 2023 headed formal complaint to various agencies including the landlord and the agent.
This service spotlight report on managing agents says that landlords should “review complaints they have received where managing agents have been a contributory factor to identify areas for improvement. Landlords should then create an action plan to implement the findings from this review.”
The landlord has failed to evidence it took any action following notification that the agent may have not been fulfilling its obligations in relation to investigating the resident’s ASB reports. This was not appropriate.
A further email was sent to the agent by the resident on 15 February 2023. She said that she had complained in November 2022 and January and February 2023 and had not had a response. She said she also requested a community trigger. The agent responded at stage 1 on 13 March 2023 accepting that it had failed to respond to the resident’s emails and telephone calls.
It also said that:
1. It was sorry it failed to communicate to the resident that her ASB case was closed. Therefore, it would open a new case.
2. It spoke with the resident and gave safeguarding advice on 14 October 2022.
3. It spoke with the neighbour on 14 October 2022 who made counter allegations about the resident.
Nevertheless, there was no evidence to demonstrate the actions of 14 October 2022. This Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management says record keeping is a core function when providing a service, it says a landlord should keep a robust record of contacts, which is vital to provide an audit trail. It also helps this service to understand the landlord’s actions and confirm that an action took place.
In addition, whilst it was appropriate that the agent accepted its failings it was unfair to the resident that she would have to begin the process again, given her ASB case had been closed.
The resident remained unhappy with the response and requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 20 March 2023. The agent responded at stage 2 on 13 April 2023. Whilst it again clearly outlined its failings and what it would do to put things right, this did not include what action it would take to investigate the resident’s ASB case. This was not appropriate given the resident’s concerns related to the lack of action taken by the agent.

Post internal complaints process (ICP)

In June 2023, the agent carried out the following actions:
1. Provided the resident with a single point of contact – a new case manager with once fortnightly updates.
2. Offered mediation and an acceptable behaviour contract to both parties.
3. Prepared an action plan.
4. Encouraged the resident to use the ASB app to record incidents.
Whilst it is acknowledged that some steps were taken to investigate the resident’s reports, it was not appropriate that these action were delayed and did not happen until the end of the complaints process.
In summary, despite having a managing agent in place, the landlord has ultimate responsibility to ensure its obligations are met in relation to ASB. The landlord’s lack of oversight led to detriment being caused to the resident over a prolonged period of time. Prior to the formal complaint, it failed to evidence it:
1. Completed a risk assessment matrix.
2. Produced an action plan.
3. Gathered any supporting evidence such as statements from other residents.
4. Referred the case for an ASB case review (previously known as a community trigger) or provide the resident with information on how to do this.
Therefore, as outlined above there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. Whilst £250 compensation was offered to the resident this was not sufficient to put things right. This is because the resident had said numerous times over a period of several months that she felt threatened, her children were scared and she was scared for her family’s safety.
Despite this the landlord has not evidenced any meaningful action it took until after the final response which was over 7 months after the initial complaint.
As a result, £700 compensation has been awarded to the resident. This is made up of £100 for each month from September 2022 until its final response of April 2023.
From January 2024 the landlord managed all ASB cases and complaints. Furthermore, in March 2024 it implemented its own ASB policy. Therefore, we have not ordered any learning in recognition of this.

Complaint handling

The agent’s complaint policy operates a two-stage complaint process. It says that stage one responses will be sent within 10 working days and stage two responses sent within 20 working days.
Its policy defines a complaint as “An expression of dissatisfaction, however made.”
It has been evidenced that the resident tried to raise a stage 1 complaint on 22 November 2022 saying that she “wanted to take this further”. She again expressed dissatisfaction on 28 November 2022 saying she was “disappointed” that she had not received a response to her complaint.
The agent failed to recognise the need to raise a stage 1 complaint and in doing so it failed to follow its complaints procedure. This was not appropriate.
The resident sent chasing emails on 7 December 2022, 9 February, and 15 February 2023. A stage 1 response was sent on 13 March 2023. This was 76 working days later and significantly outside of its policy timescale.
This was evidently frustrating for the resident and caused her significant time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 20 March 2023. A final response was provided on 13 April 2023 which was 18 working days later and sent within its policy timescale. This was appropriate.
In summary, despite the resident sending a total of 6 emails expressing her dissatisfaction and chasing a response to her complaint, the agent failed to recognise the need to raise a formal complaint and did not provide a formal response for 76 working days. In turn this delayed a resolution and the resident being able bring her complaint to this service for 7 months. The resident was clear that this was causing her distress, and she spent a significant amount of time and trouble seeking a response.
Therefore, as outlined about there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. A total of £175 has been awarded to the resident. This is made up of £25 each month for the 7-month delay.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration for the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s report of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. Complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £875 made up of:
1. £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her in relation to its response to her reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB). This can be reduced by any amount already paid.
2. £175 compensation in recognition for the time and trouble she spent pursuing the complaint.
The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report, in line with this service’ apologies guidance. https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/centre-for-learning/key-topics/our-orders/apologies-guidance/