A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202126302)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126302

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

11 August 2023

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 is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property which is a one bedroom second floor flat in a house conversion. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident has complex support needs, she has mobility issues and suffers from mental health.
3. On 9 November 2021, the resident made two formal complaints regarding ASB from her neighbours. The first complaint was about smoke coming into her flat from two of her neighbours property’s. She felt that the smoke from one of her neighbours was potentially from a drug. The second complaint was about her safety and privacy being invaded due to her neighbours opening of the front door via the intercom system and allowing delivery drivers in. Also, she felt that she was being spied on by her neighbour and they were using the intercom to listen in on her deliveries.
4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response to the resident on 11 November 2021, and to her advocate on 18 November 2021. The complaints were not upheld. This was because the resident had not raised the matters with the landlord prior to making the formal complaint.
5. On 21 December 2021, the resident’s advocate emailed the landlord requesting that it investigate an issue raised in the second half of her initial complaint, regarding the invasion of the resident’s privacy and to send a copy of this response to the advocate. The landlord responded to this email, informing the resident’s advocate that the second half of the initial complaint had already been addressed in its stage one response.
6. On 21 January 2022, the resident’s advocate informed the landlord of her wish to escalate the complaint to stage two of its process. The landlord issued this on 25 February 2022, stating based on its findings from the investigation the complaint would not be upheld.
7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and asked this service to investigate. Her desired outcomes are for her neighbours to be warned about their conduct and for action to be taken against them.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB)

8. The landlord has signed up to the RESPECT standard for housing management. As part of this, the landlord has produced a RESPECT charter, setting out the principals it had committed to by the RESPECT standard. These principles were incorporated in its anti-social behaviour procedure. It stated that it would:

a. Aim to respond to complaints within 48 working hours to take details of the complaint and where possible agree an action plan,

b. Aim to keep fortnightly contact with all complainants identified in live antisocial behaviour cases,

c. Use a variety of available remedies to tackle anti-social behaviour including preventative and enforcement measures,

d. Encourage and help customers to solve their differences themselves wherever possible,

e. Consider and arrange support for a complainant and perpetrators of antisocial behaviour where appropriate, and possible.

9. The landlord’s policy further states that it takes a victim centred approach. It may complete a risk assessment with complainants and where appropriate offer a face-to-face meeting. It will assess what steps are appropriate to deal with the behaviour and formulate a response in line with the nature and level of ASB. The risk level would guide its investigation. Once a case is logged it would regularly communicate with complainants in their preferred medium as much as possible. Using its complaints policy and procedure, residents have the right to make a complaint if they believe is has failed to follow its anti-social behaviour policy and procedure, and as a result provided them an unsatisfactory service.
10. This service has not seen evidence of the resident reporting the ASB matters prior to her initial formal complaint. The landlord highlighted this in its stage one response and informed her that because of this it could not carry out an investigation on whether there had been service failures. This was a fair and reasonable response from the landlord and in line with its policy. The matter should have in the first instance been reported as an ASB issue. This would give the landlord the opportunity to open a case and undertake an investigation of the matters and attempt to tackle it with its available remedies. This is crucial so that it could gather information on what had happened with the alleged perpetrators, so that it could then take proportionate action prior to the matter being treated as a complaint.
11. The landlord also explained that it does not allow resident’s, to smoke within the communal parts of buildings but they can smoke in their own homes. This was an appropriate response from the landlord and is in accordance with the tenancy agreement. It also offered support for the resident’s concerns and tried to minimise any detrimental impact on her. It informed her that it had requested for its repairs team to inspect her floorboards and that if she felt that illegal substances were being smoked she needed to call the police as that would be a criminal matter. The ordering of an inspection was appropriate action from the landlord as it sought to ascertain how it could assist the resident. While the landlord would be responsible for taking tenancy action, as the use of drugs would have breached the conditions of a tenancy agreement, it was reasonable to signpost the resident to the police in the first instance. This would have ensured that any incidences were properly responded to and that evidence could be gathered. This service also recognises though that the level of action taken by a landlord is based on the evidence provided by the resident. As such, it would have been reasonable after receiving a further report of ASB on 18 November 2021, for the landlord to have advised the resident to log the incidents via diary sheets.
12. The landlord acted appropriately and raised a job to inspect the resident’s property and establish whether any works could improve her circumstance. It noted on 29 November 2021, however, that its repairs team were not granted entry. While the Ombudsman would generally consider this to have been a fair attempt, it is noted that prior notice was not given for the visit, despite being made aware that the resident was very sensitive about being contacted by people she did not know. The landlord should have taken into account her personal circumstances.
13. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised. It is unclear to this Service, however, why the landlord did not seek to rearrange the inspection given that the issue still remained. By not taking any action, the resident would have been left frustrated.
14. On 29 November 2021, the resident’s advocate requested on her behalf that the landlord treat the repair request as a complaint and deal with it as ASB. The landlord responded by asking that they provide as much detail as possible so that its complaints team could process a complaint. The landlord also offered to speak with the advocate the following day and discuss the best means of communication and service needs for the resident. The landlord remained in communication with the resident’s advocate and responded in a timely manner. It had acted fairly and appropriately in light of her complex needs and the fact she had stated that she was unable to read.
15. On 21 December 2021, the resident’s advocate requested that the landlord investigate an issue raised in her initial complaint, regarding the invasion of her privacy. The landlord responded informing her that it had already done so. This Service is in agreement with the landlord’s position. It would have been reasonable as the landlord had no evidence to act on. Also, in its stage one response regarding the second part of the resident’s complaint, the landlord had explained that only the person at the front door and the individual flat number they had dialled have access to a conversation via the intercom system. It further stated that it would take action by writing to all the resident’s neighbours to inform them to only provide access for deliveries for their own specific address and not to other properties. This is fair and proportionate action.
16. On 21 January 2022, the resident requested an escalation of her complaint to stage two. The landlord acknowledged this on 25 January 2022, and sent its formal response on the 25 February 2022. In its response the landlord did not uphold the complaint. It addressed the resident’s concerns regarding her neighbour listening to her conversations and intercepting her parcels, stating that it could not do anything about this. It is noted that the landlord had advised the resident to include specific delivery instructions to the companies that she retailed from. Also, it had written to all the resident’s to advise them to not allow access to the building to anyone they were not expecting. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was not an unreasonable response.
17. As the resident suggested that retailers were unable to deliver to her due to her neighbour, the landlord requested evidence of this and that she had reported the matter to the police. Also, evidence that her neighbours were victimising her and invading her privacy. In the absence of this evidence, the landlord was unable to take further steps. The police visited the resident’s neighbour at a later time and was unable to confirm the smell of drugs / smoke.
18. For the most part, the landlord took proportionate action and gave constructive advice in response to the resident’s ASB reports. It is noted that the resident should have reported the ASB and provided the landlord with evidence so that it could carry out effective investigations and offer remedies before making a formal complaint. Nevertheless, after the resident’s complaint and request the landlord should have approached the matter in line with its usual ASB process and advised the resident to make a diary of the incidents and on the importance of accruing evidence. There was no agreed action plan and while it initially proposed an inspection, the landlord was not proactive in re-arranging the visit to seek to identify a remedy. 

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Orders

20. This service orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £100 compensation for its service failure in handling the resident’s reports of ASB.
21. This must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination. The landlord must provide evidence to this service that payment has been made or attempted also within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

22. The landlord should update the resident on the actions/findings from any inspections that have since been carried out or, if an inspection has not yet happened, should arrange this within four weeks of this report.