Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited (202221244)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221244

Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited

17 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a one-bedroom flat under an assured tenancy agreement. Attached to the property are bin and bike stores. The bin stores are located beneath the resident’s home.
Between 6 October 2021 and 25 March 2022, the resident made at least 11 reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) to the landlord. The majority of these reports were related to the behaviour of a group of teenagers and included:
1. damage caused by the perpetrators breaking into the bin and bike stores
2. fires and fireworks being set in the bin stores
3. loitering
4. drug use
5. harassment and verbal abuse
6. threats of physical violence
7. cigarettes being thrown through the resident’s window.
In response to the resident’s reports of ASB, the landlord advised her to report the incidents to the police.
For the reasons set out in paragraphs 23 and 24 (below), it is not clear when the resident raised a formal complaint. In its stage 1 complaint response on 5 May 2022, the landlord:
1. acknowledged that it had failed to identify the resident’s complaint
2. apologised to the resident
3. advised the resident that it could not take any enforcement action because the perpetrators were not known to be residents of the landlord
4. advised the resident to report incidents of ASB to the police
5. concluded that it had handled her reports of ASB appropriately
6. offered the resident £30 compensation.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. In its stage 2 complaint response on 9 September 2022, the landlord:
1. agreed to install CCTV, security lights, and put-up signage in the bin store
2. agreed to upgrade the bin and bike stores with metal doors
3. stated that it would endeavour to complete the upgrades by the end of October 2022
4. acknowledged that it had failed to adequately monitor the reports of ASB
5. explained that it was following a new ASB monitoring system
6. advised the resident to continue to report ASB incidents to the police
7. apologised to the resident
8. offered the resident £150 compensation.
The resident contacted the landlord in December 2022, as the agreed upgrades had not been completed, and she had not heard anything further from it. The landlord responded that it had since become aware that it was not the owner of the land on which the bin and bike stores were located and that it would need to request these upgrades to be carried out by the property management company (PMC) who had been appointed by the freeholder.
In March 2023, the resident again contacted the landlord, as the agreed upgrades had not been completed, and she had not heard anything further from it. The landlord responded that it would follow this up with the PMC.
The landlord opened a new complaint and provided the resident with its stage 1 response on 17 April 2023. In its stage 1 response, the landlord:
1. confirmed that the PMC owned the bin and bike stores
2. confirmed that it had asked the PMC to upgrade the security of the bin and bike stores
3. acknowledged that it had not been proactive in its communications with the resident or the PMC
4. apologised to the resident
5. offered the resident additional locks for her home.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked this service to investigate. As of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman understands that the ASB is ongoing and that no upgrades to the bin or bike stores have been completed.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy states that it would investigate and respond to reports of ASB within five working days. The policy also states that the landlord would work in collaboration with the police, and use all the legal powers available to it, including the use of ‘without notice’ injunctions.
The policy states that if a resident has complained about three separate ASB incidents in six months and considers there has been no action taken, they can report this to the relevant local authority using the Community Trigger (now an ASB Review). If the local authority agrees that the criteria for the Community Trigger have been met, they will arrange a multi-agency review of the case.
The resident made multiple reports of ASB between October 2021 and June 2023. In correspondence with the landlord and this service, the resident has explained the significant detrimental impact this behaviour has had on her health and has stated that she feels unsafe in her own home.
In response to her reports of ASB, the landlord has continuously reiterated its advice that it is unable to take any action in response to the ASB because the perpetrators are not known to be its residents. It advised the resident to report incidents of ASB to the police.
The landlord’s response was not appropriate. Tenancy enforcement action is not the only course of action available to landlords when responding to reports of ASB. Under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 the landlord has a range of options available to it, including applying to the court for an injunction, CPN or CBO. There has been no evidence presented to this service that the landlord took legal advice around these options or considered their suitability in this case. In addition, there is no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with any information relating to the Community Trigger.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged failings in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB and acknowledged that it had failed to adequately monitor the reports of ASB. Despite this, the landlord concluded that its response to the resident’s reports of ASB was satisfactory and offered her no compensation about this.
This was not appropriate. The Ombudsman expects landlords to be able to offer adequate redress for failings identified within the complaints process, without the involvement of this service. The landlord ought to have compensated the resident for the failings it had already identified.
It is disappointing to note that the landlord did not conduct a risk assessment until April 2023. This is of particular concern to the Ombudsman, as since October 2021, the resident had reported intimidation, threats of violence, and fires being set directly beneath her home.
Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there has been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to compensate the resident, and also orders the landlord to review the resident’s reports of ASB, consider what other actions it could take, and provide an action plan to the resident and the Ombudsman.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord operated a two-stage complaints process. At the first stage, the landlord should log complaints within five working days and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of being logged. The landlord should log escalation requests within five working days, convene an appeals panel within 15 working days of being logged, and provide a stage 2 response within five working days of the appeal panel meeting.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it would offer residents up to £50 compensation for ‘minor’ disruption, up to £150 for ‘moderate’ disruption, and up to £300 for ‘extensive’ disruption.
In an internal email dated 22 April 2022 a member of the landlord’s staff, who was responding to the resident’s subject access request, identified that the resident had requested a formal complaint be opened on several occasions between 6 October 2021 and 25 March 2022, but that the complaint had not been actioned.
The evidence made available to this service indicates that the latest possible date at which the resident raised her complaint was 25 January 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 5 May 2022, which was at least 70 working days after the resident raised her complaint.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord concluded that it had handled reports of ASB appropriately, but it acknowledged that it had not always responded to the resident’s reports of ASB promptly and had failed to identify the resident’s complaint. It apologised for this and offered her £30 compensation.
The landlord’s response was not appropriate. The Ombudsman expects landlords to be able to identify and resolve complaints without the involvement of this service. Given the volume of contacts the resident had with the landlord at the time, the landlord’s failure to properly identify her complaint was continuous and repeated – which gave rise to fault on the part of the landlord. Furthermore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s offer of compensation was not reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint to the second stage of its process on 22 July 2022. The resident and landlord arranged a mutually convenient date to hold an in-person review panel meeting. The meeting was held on 2 September 2022, and the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 9 September 2022. This was appropriate.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that it had not maintained adequate records of the resident’s ASB reports, which it explained was due to its IT system ‘closing’ reports once they had been logged. This prevented it from recognising patterns and repeated issues. It stated that it had implemented a new ASB reporting system.
During the complaint procedure, the landlord agreed to upgrade the bin and bike stores with metal doors to deter the ASB. It also agreed to install, security lights, CCTV, and put-up signage. It stated that it intended to install the doors by the end of October 2022.
It advised the resident to continue reporting ASB incidents to the police and to report incidents to the local authority. It apologised to the resident for its complaint handling failings and offered her £150 compensation.
In December 2022, the resident approached the landlord for an update, as none of the agreed upgrades had taken place, and she had not received any correspondence from the landlord about this. On 16 December 2022, the landlord acknowledged that there had been no progress on the agreed upgrades and apologised for not communicating this to the resident. It stated that it had become aware that it does not own the bin or bike stores, and therefore, it would be the responsibility of the PMC. It asked the PMC to do the upgrades on this date.
The landlord’s response was not appropriate. The Ombudsman expects landlords to be able to resolve complaints without the involvement of this service. This includes an expectation that landlords will take reasonable steps to assess what feasible solutions can be offered. The landlord ought to have known that it did not own the bin or bike stores, and therefore that it would not be able to undertake the upgrades, before its stage 2 response. This was not appropriate as it gave the resident a false expectation.
The landlord’s failure will have been particularly frustrating to the resident given the ongoing complaint handling failures identified in this report.
Furthermore, the landlord has not been proactive in communicating to the resident that it would be unable to undertake the upgrades it had promised her in its stage 2 response. The evidence indicates that the landlord was made aware it did not own the bin or bike stores on 10 October 2022 at the latest. It did not inform the resident until 16 December 2022 and only did so in response to her request for an update. That was not appropriate.
In addition, the landlord has not been proactive in communicating with the PMC to resolve the resident’s concerns about the ASB and to achieve the remedy it promised in its responses. The landlord was informed on 10 October 2022 that it did not own the bin or bike stores. It did not ask the PMC to review the feasibility of upgrades to the bin and bike stores until 16 December 2022 and only did so in response to the resident’s request for an update.
In March 2023, the resident approached the landlord for an update, as none of the agreed upgrades had taken place, and she had not received any correspondence from the landlord about this.
At an unknown date following this, the resident raised a further complaint that the landlord had not undertaken the work it promised in its stage 2 response and had not communicated with her about it. The evidence indicates that this was no later than 30 March 2023.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response under a new complaint on 17 April 2023. In its response, the landlord confirmed that it did not have ownership of the bin or bike stores, acknowledged that it had not been proactive in communicating with the resident, and apologised. It did not offer the resident any compensation.
The landlord’s response was not appropriate. The Ombudsman expects landlords to be able to offer adequate redress for failings that landlords have already identified within the complaints process, without the involvement of this service. The landlord ought to have compensated the resident for the failings it had already identified.
Given the various repeated and continuous complaint handling failings identified in this report, it is the Ombudsman’s view that there has been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £250 for its complaint handling failings, and a further £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord’s compensation policy is not consistent with this service’s remedies guidance. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord undertake a review of its compensation policy and update it to ensure it offers adequate redress to residents in future. This is part of this service’s dispute resolution principles of being fair and putting things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of anti-social behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Pay the resident £1,000 comprising of:
  1. £500 for its handling of reports of ASB
  2. £250 for its handling of the resident’s complaint
  3. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
2. Provide evidence of this payment to the Ombudsman.
3. Review the resident’s reports of ASB, consider what other actions it could take, and provide a new action plan to the resident and the Ombudsman.
4. Contact the freeholder/owner and managing agent of the land and request permission to make the alterations to the area. If granted, the landlord then considers if it will make the changes. If it decides to, the landlord must use its best endeavours to ensure the works are completed within 8 weeks of the date that permission is granted.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord review its compensation policy and update it to make it consistent with this service’s remedies guidance.