Orbit Housing Association Limited (202342464)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342464

Orbit Housing Association Limited

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour.
2. The associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy which started on 27 February 2023. The property is a 1-bed maisonette. The resident’s tenancy paperwork shows the landlord had made a referral to its support team for her. It was aware that the resident had mental health needs.
The resident told the landlord that she experienced antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour. This included banging noises and loud music playing.
On 4 March 2024, the resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. She said that she thought it had logged her previous ASB reports as a complaint but was upset that it had not. She said it had not helped her with the ASB as it had not taken any action against the neighbour. She said the neighbour had fly tipped which caused a pest infestation and they continued to cause noise nuisance. She said she was unhappy that it could not offer her a management move to another property despite being aware of the impact on her mental health.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 2 April 2024. It upheld her complaint. It said:
1. It apologised that it had not raised a complaint sooner as it could see she had made complaints previously.
2. The tenancy services manager had now updated her regarding the ASB issues. It had outlined the plan of how it intended to address the issue which included moving the neighbour. It advised her to continue to report any further ASB.
3. It apologised for the distress caused by incorrectly raising the fly tipping repair on her account, instead of the neighbour’s account. It said it had removed the neighbour’s rubbish.
4. It acknowledged that the ASB had impacted her mental health. It apologised that its customer services team had not followed the correct process regarding the resident’s wellbeing when she reported that her mental health had significantly deteriorated.
5. It offered a total of £450 compensation to her. This included:
  1. £200 for distress and inconvenience.
  2. £50 for a service failing where it logged the fly tipping issue to the resident’s home and not the neighbour’s.
  3. £50 for the incorrect process followed by the customer services team.
  4. £150 for poor complaint handling with logging and acknowledging the complaint.
The resident asked this Service to help her escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. On 17 April 2024, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord to escalate the complaint. The resident remained unhappy with the impact that the ASB had on her mental health. She also felt that the landlord’s initial complaint response did not fully address all of the issues she raised.
On 7 June 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It did not uphold the complaint. It said:
1. It understood that it had resolved some aspects of the complaint within its initial complaint response. This included the fly tipping, complaint delays and the customer services team not following the correct safeguarding process.
2. It opened an ASB case in November 2023. It found the local authority’s environmental health team had closed their investigation as the noise had not met the criteria for noise nuisance. It had investigated her concerns with the police but had not found any evidence of ASB.
3. It was difficult for it to act on the reported ASB without evidence. It acknowledged she wanted it to evict the neighbour but said that the courts would not support an eviction application without evidence. It also said it would issue warnings first before proceeding with an eviction if it had evidence of ASB.
4. It said that the ASB case remained open and advised her to complete diary logs and noise recordings. It said that she should report further threats made by the neighbour to the police and it would log these on the ASB case. It also advised her to reconsider the option of using a professional witness service to gather evidence of the reported ASB.
5. It was sorry to hear that she felt it was unsympathetic about the impact of the ASB on her mental health. It listened to her comments about not wanting a specific staff member to be involved in her ASB investigation, and another staff member took over the investigations as a result. It had also referred her to its mental health partner and made repeated safeguarding referrals when needed.
6. It would move the neighbour to another property under a management move to help resolve the ASB concerns. It said it could not confirm when this would happen as this would depend on when properties became available.
The resident escalated her complaint to this Service as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response. She said it was aware of the ASB reports since February 2023 and the impact on her mental health. She said the neighbour continued to cause ASB and she wanted to move to another property. The complaint became one that the Ombudsman could investigate on 27 June 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident wants the landlord to rehouse her due to the ongoing ASB concerns. However, it is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to order the landlord to offer immediate rehousing to the resident, or to prioritise her over other applicants or tenants that need rehousing and who may be in a similar, or greater, need. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine whether the landlord acted in line with its legal obligations, policies and procedures, and best practice.
The resident said that both the ASB and the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports affected her mental health. While this Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health, it is outside our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
The resident has told this Service that she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of personal information. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to consider complaints about data protection. Such an investigation may be better suited to the Information Commissioner’s Office. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme.
It is evident that the resident is experiencing issues which occurred after the landlord’s final complaint response. This relates to an escalation of the ASB, such as receiving death threats from the neighbour. The Ombudsman cannot investigate matters that did not go through the landlord’s internal complaints process. The resident may wish to log a new complaint with the landlord for it to investigate her concerns and have the opportunity to put things right. She may then bring that complaint to the Ombudsman as a new case to investigate if needed. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme.

The landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour

The resident told the landlord that she experienced noise nuisance from her neighbour. This included banging noises and loud music playing. The landlord’s records show that she first reported ASB from the neighbour on 23 November 2023. However, the resident disputes this and has told this Service that she first reported the ASB in February 2023, when she moved into the property. The Ombudsman is unable to reach a firm conclusion on this due to the lack of evidence provided.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy states that it will respond to reports of noise nuisance within 3 working days of a report. It adds that it will complete a risk assessment and an action plan with the resident to manage expectations on how it will investigate and respond to the reported ASB. It also outlines that it would work in partnership with other organisations such as the police and the local authority to investigate the reported ASB.
The landlord has failed to provide comprehensive records of how, and when, it responded to the resident’s ASB reports. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to assess that it responded to the resident’s ASB reports appropriately within the timeframe stated in its policy.
A victim-centred approach is essential to identify risk and can help guide the landlord with what actions it needs to take. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord completed a risk assessment with the resident to measure the potential harm. This hindered the landlord’s ability to recognise the level of risk posed to the resident and whether it needed to refer her to any specialist support services. This is especially important given that it was aware that the resident moved into this property following being in a refuge after experiencing domestic abuse. It should have considered the impact of the ASB and the risks this could have posed to her. It is therefore a significant failing that the landlord has not evidenced that it followed its policy in this regard.
Within the landlord’s complaint responses, it said that it had taken a number of steps to investigate the reported ASB. These included liaising with the police and the local authority’s environmental health team, after the resident disclosed that both organisations were aware of the reported ASB concerns. It said that both organisations could not provide evidence of the resident’s ASB reports.
While it would have been good practice, and in line with its own policy, to work in partnership with the organisations, the landlord has failed to provide evidence to this Service to show that it did so. Due to a lack of evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman cannot assess the accuracy of its findings with the police and environmental health, or whether it did in fact complete these actions.
Also, within the landlord’s final complaint response, it said that it had previously advised the resident of options available to her regarding evidencing the ASB. It said it had offered to involve a professional witness service to attend the property to evidence what the resident experienced, but she had declined this offer. It also said it had previously explained to her that it would transfer the neighbour under a management move which remained in progress.
The landlord has failed to evidence when, or if it did, communicate this to the resident before stating this in its final complaint response. A delay in providing this update about how it would resolve the ASB through moving the neighbour would have understandably caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident. The lack of evidence means that the Ombudsman cannot assess whether it proactively provided such advice and support. This is a failing.
The landlord relied on information within its complaint responses which it has not evidenced to the Ombudsman. It is therefore difficult for this Service to assess whether it responded appropriately to the ASB reports. The landlord’s record keeping was not comprehensive as it could not evidence what the resident had reported and what it did in response to the reports.
The landlord did take some positive action regarding the reported ASB. On 1 December 2023, it managed her expectations during a telephone call. It explained that it had to build a case to be able to take legal action through the courts, as she wanted the neighbour evicted. It also advised her of the options of seeking her own move through the local authority’s housing register.
While this advice was correct and reasonable, the landlord failed to consider more informal steps to address the reported ASB, such as mediation. If it had considered such steps, it may have reassured the resident that it was taking her concerns seriously and helped to resolve the issues she experienced.
Additionally, the landlord listened to the resident’s concerns with a specific staff member investigating the ASB reports. The resident asked for someone else to manage her ASB case and it responded appropriately to her request and ensured that another staff member took over the investigation.
The resident remained unhappy that the landlord had not offered her a management move to another property. She said that she wanted to move to get away from the ASB. The landlord’s management moves procedure states that such moves are for emergency situations where there is a risk of harm supported by a partner agency such as the police, GP or local authority. There is no evidence available to suggest that any agencies outlined such a risk of harm. It was therefore reasonable and in line with the landlord’s procedure to not offer the resident a management move without such evidence.
As part of the complaint, the resident said she was unhappy that she reported fly tipping caused by the neighbour, but the landlord raised the report on her tenancy account. The landlord has not provided the repair records which would have shown what it recorded on her account, which is a failing. It is not disputed that the landlord removed the rubbish, but it is unclear whether it acted within a reasonable timeframe due to the lack of evidence provided. It also remains unclear whether it has removed this from the resident’s account, which is a failing.
The resident raised concerns about how the ASB impacted her mental health. On the whole, the landlord managed these reports appropriately by raising an internal safeguarding report when required. Between 1 December 2023 and when the landlord issued its final complaint response on 7 June 2024, it raised 14 separate safeguarding reports. On each occasion, it considered the risk of harm and took appropriate steps to safeguard her. This included escalation to emergency services when needed. This was in line with its safeguarding policy.
There was an occasion on 14 February 2024 where the landlord did not act appropriately in response to the resident’s report of her mental health deteriorating. It acknowledged that it failed to escalate this report to the emergency services given that she had reported a significant risk to her life. It was appropriate for it to acknowledge its failings. It explained that it had reminded its staff of its safeguarding procedures which was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord also referred the resident to its mental health partner following her comments about her mental health. While the resident told the landlord it was not helpful, it was still reasonable for it to have ensured that the resident had the option of support available to her.
The landlord offered a total of £300 compensation to the resident for its handling of the ASB reports. This was made up of £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her. It was also made up of £50 each for its error in raising the fly tipping to the resident’s account and for its safeguarding failure. While it was appropriate for the landlord to attempt to offer redress towards its failings, its offer was not proportionate to the failures identified within this report.
Overall, while the landlord took some steps to address the impact of the ASB on her mental health, it failed to evidence that it appropriately investigated the ASB reports. It should have been able to provide evidence to this Service which showed that it had completed a risk assessment to consider the impact on the resident. It should have set out the actions it would take to investigate the ASB reports to offer reassurance to the resident and keep her involved with the progress of her ASB case. It also should have been able to evidence that it engaged with other organisations, such as the police and the environmental health team, to investigate the ASB reports.
The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in light of the lack of evidence that it acted appropriately in response to the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord is ordered to pay a further £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of antisocial behaviour. This is an appropriate award where a failure adversely affected the resident.

The associated complaint handling

As part of the resident’s complaint, she said that she had tried to make a number of complaints previously, but the landlord had not responded to her. The landlord has failed to evidence any earlier complaints made by the resident, but it acknowledged this complaint handling failure within its complaint responses. It is a record keeping failure that the landlord has not evidenced this to the Ombudsman.
The landlord offered £150 compensation towards its poor complaint handling with logging and acknowledging the complaint. It also apologised for not raising the complaint sooner. Due to the lack of evidence, the Ombudsman cannot assess whether the redress offered was proportionate to the failing.
On 29 February 2024, the resident contacted the landlord and made a complaint about the ASB. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have started the complaints process at this point. However, it instead logged the complaint following a further telephone conversation where the resident raised her complaint again on 4 March 2024. This would have added unnecessary delays and understandably caused further frustration to the resident, especially since it had not responded to her earlier complaints (which it later acknowledged in its complaint responses).
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 11 March 2024. It said it would respond to the complaint within 10 working days, by 25 March 2024. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It later told the resident it would need additional time and would respond by 9 April 2024. While this may have caused additional distress to the resident, the landlord can request additional time, up to a further 10 working days, to respond to the complaint. It therefore acted in line with the Code.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 2 April 2024. It is understood that it later reissued the stage 1 complaint response on 9 April 2024. It is unclear why it reissued the complaint response a week later, and whether there were any differences between the responses. This would have understandably caused avoidable confusion to the resident.
The resident asked this Service to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. The Ombudsman escalated the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 17 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 23 April 2024. It said it would respond to the complaint within 20 working days, which would have been by 22 May 2024.
On 15 May 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident and said it needed additional time to respond to the complaint. It said it would respond to the complaint by 30 May 2024, which gave it a further 10 working days to respond. This extension was in line with the Code.
However, the landlord failed to respond within its agreed timescale. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 3 June 2024 and asked it to provide its final complaint response within 5 working days. It provided its response within this extended timeframe, on 7 June 2024.
It was not appropriate for the landlord to delay in providing its response. The resident should not have to chase the landlord or contact this Service to receive a response to her complaint escalation. This would have understandably caused inconvenience to her because of the time and trouble spent in chasing the outcome, likely leading her to the view that the landlord was not taking her complaint and concerns seriously. The final complaint response did not acknowledge any complaint handling failures with delays at both stage 1 and stage 2, which was not appropriate. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to put things right for the resident.
Considering the above, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s associated complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to pay a further £200 compensation to the resident. This is to offer redress for the time and trouble the resident experienced throughout the complaints process. This includes the delays and lack of communication she experienced.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the associated complaint handling.

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing regarding the failures identified within this investigation. The apology should refer to both the substantive complaint and the complaint handling.
2. Pay the £450 compensation it awarded in its stage 1 complaint response, if it has not already done so.
3. Pay an additional £300 compensation for the failures in its handling of reports of antisocial behaviour. It should pay this directly to the resident and not to her rent account.
4. Pay an additional £200 compensation for the failures in its associated complaint handling. It should pay this directly to the resident and not to her rent account.
5. Contact the resident regarding the ASB reported. It should complete an ASB risk assessment and agree an action plan of how it will investigate the reported ASB. The action plan should also outline what steps it will take to support her and resolve the ASB concerns.
6. Confirm that it has removed the fly tipping report from the resident’s account.
7. Provide refresher training to the appropriate staff members on how to respond to reports of ASB in line with its policy. If it cannot organise this within 28 calendar days, it should provide a training plan and a date within the next 3 months that it will deliver all training by.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.