A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202219705)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219705

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

28 March 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:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by her neighbours.
   2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

2. At the time of her complaint, the resident was a tenant of the property, a 2-bed house owned by the landlord. She resided with her 2 children who have mental health conditions and neurodivergence. Her daughter helped her with bringing her complaint to this Service and engaged in communicating with the landlord throughout the complaint. To avoid confusion, both the resident and her daughter will be referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report.
3. The resident reported issues with her neighbours to the landlord as far back as 2017, but in an email on 28 July 2022, she referred to microaggressions, profanities and xenophobic remarks, along with noise at unsuitable hours from neighbour A and neighbour B. The 2 households were related, and she felt intimidated being in the middle of them.
4. On 11 November 2022, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of her ASB reports. It did not acknowledge this, and she sent a further complaint on 22 November 2022. In this, she said its investigation had not felt victim led. She reminded the landlord of her children’s mental health and additional needs, saying she felt easier to exploit as a vulnerable tenant. She included other matters relating to repairs and the removal of a shed in her complaint.
5. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 7 December 2022. In its response, it did not discuss any of her points relating to ASB. It offered the resident compensation of £50 for its poor communication relating to repairs.
6. No clear evidence of the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 has been provided to this Service, however, in its stage 2 response on 26 May 2023 the landlord mentioned that it had received an undated letter from her on 6 January 2023 and this should have been noted as her escalation request. It offered her compensation totalling £385 at stage 2. £200 of this was for other issues raised, £85 was for its delayed stage 2 escalation and £100 was for its poor handling of her antisocial behaviour case.
7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and approach to her ASB reports and brought her complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has reported the impact the issues have had on her and her children’s mental health. The Ombudsman does not dispute this; however, we are unable to make a determination about the causal link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s mental health. This report has considered the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s mental health is more appropriate for the courts and the resident may wish to pursue this in a legal setting.

9. The issues that led to the resident making a formal complaint to the landlord in November 2022 stemmed from the resident’s report of ASB in July 2022. Prior to this there were issues with ASB since at least 2017. Whilst the historic problems with ASB give context to more recent events, the Ombudsman’s investigation is focused on the period from July 2022 onwards. As these have become historical, they cannot reasonably be investigated at this time. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that complaints will not usually be considered that were not brought to the attention of the member landlord within a reasonable period of time, usually within 6months of the matter arising.

Policies and procedures

10. The landlord’s ASB policy outlines its approach to reports from residents. It states that it aims to respond to reports within 48 working hours to take details of the report and agree an action plan where possible. It may complete a risk assessment with those who report ASB and will communicate with complainants fortnightly using their preferred contact method. It outlines non-legal remedies that it uses to resolve ASB, including but not limited to, mediation, warnings and multi-agency working.
11. In its compensation policy, the landlord has outlined how it calculates payments for service failure based on impact to the resident, the time taken to address the concern(s) and the level of detriment, stress, and inconvenience to the resident. It offers payments of up to £150 for detriment, stress, and inconvenience and up to £240 for the length of time taken to resolve the issue.
12. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge and log the complaint within 5 working days, providing a stage 1 response within 10 working days of logging it. It states that it will carry out a non-biased investigation and aims to share a comprehensive answer. It will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of a complaint being escalated.

Reports of ASB

13. The resident reported ASB by her neighbour to the landlord on 28 July 2022. In this email, she described the impact the issues had caused to her household, along with multiple vulnerabilities. As per its ASB policy, it responded to the report within 48 working hours with an attempted call on the same day and a successful call on 29 July 2022. At this time, she declined to make her report official due to fear of consequence from her neighbours. Its initial response was prompt and appropriate.
14. On 23 August 2022, the resident made a further report to the landlord of an incident which had resulted in confrontation between her household and her neighbours. No evidence has been provided to this Service demonstrating that it responded to the report within 48 working hours, with the resident having to call on 30 August 2022 to chase contact from it. This delay was not in line with its policy and was not reasonable when considering the content of the report.
15. The landlord completed a risk assessment with the resident on 1 September 2022 following her report of noise related antisocial behaviour. It stated that it had spoken and given advice to all parties involved. This was a positive action and in line with its policy, although it was not timely.
16. On 15 September 2022, the resident made further reports of ASB to the landlord. On this occasion, it advised her to report the problems to the police. It has not provided evidence to this Service demonstrating that it logged her report as a new case or maintained fortnightly contact with her as per its policy after this report. As it deemed the issues suitable to be dealt with by the police, its inaction was not appropriate, and it did not aid the resident in feeling supported.
17. The police contacted the landlord on 31 October 2022 to advise it that the resident had reported the problems. They were unable to take further action as there was insufficient evidence but would continue to investigate a hate crime report. No evidence has been provided to this Service to indicate that the landlord logged this as a new ASB case, and it did not make any further contact with the resident. This was not reasonable in the circumstances and did not demonstrate adherence with the communication timelines in its policy.
18. The resident made a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports on 11 November 2022. As she had not received a response, she submitted a further complaint on 22 November 2022 which included other matters relating to repairs. In its complaint response on 7 December 2022, it did not acknowledge the ASB aspect of her complaint.
19. In an email on 5 April 2023, the resident advised the landlord that the antisocial behaviour was continuing and that she felt it was not supporting her. It advised her to report new incidents to its customer services team. She did not feel this was appropriate and as it formed part of her ongoing complaint which had not been escalated by the landlord. The landlord’s actions were not reasonable in the circumstances and continued to cause frustration for the resident.
20. In its stage 2 response on 26 May 2023, the landlord identified its service failure in not logging the resident’s report of ASB on 31 October 2022. It stated that it was clear the resident had provided an abundance of evidence which it had not fully considered, and it would be opening a case to review this within 28 days. It said it had also arranged for its staff to receive refresher training on the importance of logging and responding to all allegations of ASB.
21. As part of its stage 2 response, the landlord offered compensation to the resident of £385. £285 of this related to other matters within the complaint and £100 was for its poor handling of her ASB case. This amount did not take into consideration the impact of its failures on the resident and her household, thus, a further order for compensation will be made by this Service.
22. In conclusion, while the landlord responded to the initial report within the complaint period promptly and acted appropriately by completing a risk assessment, it did not correctly log and investigate the resident’s further reports of ASB. It signposted her to the police without taking any further action itself and did not demonstrate use of any of the non-legal remedies suggested in its ASB policy. It has also not provided any evidence to show that it considered the impact the matters were having in relation to vulnerabilities within her household.

The associated formal complaint

23. The resident made a formal complaint on 11 November 2022, but this was not logged by the landlord. She chased this with the landlord and sent a further complaint on 22 November 2022. In this complaint, she raised issues with its handling of her reports of ASB and required repairs, along with its request for her to remove a shed. In its stage 1 response on 7 December 2022, the landlord failed to respond to any of her points relating to ASB. This was not in line with its complaints policy in which it states it aims to provide a comprehensive answer. It was unreasonable of it to fail to acknowledge her concerns and further undermined the landlord and tenant relationship.
24. The landlord had a further opportunity to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on 2 February and 8 February 2023 when she made it aware that she was unhappy with its lack of response to her stage 1 complaint about ASB. She continued to email it between February and April 2023 but remained without an escalated complaint.
25. The resident called the landlord on 22 May 2023 and told it that she was unhappy with the way it had misconstrued and ignored the ASB points in her stage 1 complaint. On this date, it apologised and stated that it had expedited her complaint escalation request, advising she should receive an outcome within days.
26. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 26 May 2023 was comprehensive and acknowledged all the resident’s complaint points. It disclosed that it had received an undated letter from the resident on 6 January 2023 and that this should have been acknowledged as her request to escalate her complaint, but it failed to do so. It also apologised and stated that it had misunderstood her during a phone call on 7 February 2023 and thought she no longer wished to escalate her complaint. However, she had made several attempts to request escalation after this. It offered £385 compensation broken down as follows:
    1. £85 for its delayed stage 2 escalation.
    2. £100 for inconvenience following poor advice relating to her shed.
    3. £100 for detriment caused by poor advice.
    4. £100 for its poor handling of her antisocial behaviour case.
27. In conclusion, the landlord’s complaint handling was poor, and the remedies offered for this at stage 2 were not proportionate to the detriment it had caused to the resident, along with the time it had taken her to chase it for a response. Although it was reasonable that the landlord accepted its own failing in the complaint response, it should have considered that a higher amount in compensation was warranted in the circumstances.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

29. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident additional compensation to the offers already made, totalling £400, broken down as follows:
       1. £200 for maladministration in its handling of her ASB reports.
       2. £200 for maladministration in its handling of her associated complaint.
    2. Pay the resident the compensation of £385 previously offered as part of its stage 2 response if it has not done so already.
    3. Provide a full written apology from a senior manager to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
30. The landlord must provide proof of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

31. Considering the shortcomings found in this investigation, the landlord should consider reviewing the case and identify what steps it has taken or will now take to ensure the same delays are not repeated in its future response to ASB reports.