Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust (202010792)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010792

Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust

19 July 2021

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 regarding:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. The landlord’s handling of ASB reports made against the resident.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a former tenant of the landlord, having vacated her property in 2021. At the time of the complaint, she resided in a one-bedroom, ground floor flat and had done so since 2013.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that it considers tenants to be responsible for their behaviour and, when it feels that it is warranted, it may take actions against tenants directly. It states that its approach to handling ASB cases focusses on working to prevent ASB and utilising early intervention strategies such as facilitating access to mediation services, seeking written commitments from perpetrators regarding their future conduct such as Acceptable Behaviour Contracts, and issuing verbal and written tenancy warnings.
At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a three-step complaints policy, consisting of an informal 1st Stage Resolution stage, an Investigation stage, and a final Review stage. The policy stated that a Review would not be ‘a repetition of the investigation’ and the landlord would only review a complaint if its ‘complaints process has not been followed or there are elements of the complaint that have not been addressed’.
It is noted that, within their complaint, the resident has specifically complained about the actions of two individual members of the landlord’s staff, namely their former Housing Officer and an ASB Officer. For the purposes of this investigation, this Service has considered how the landlord responded to the complaint and the issues raised by the resident overall, rather than the conduct of any individual.
Within this investigation, the summary of events covers allegations and counter allegations made by and against the resident and several of her neighbours. For the sake of clarity, the report will therefore refer to ‘Neighbour A’, ‘Neighbour B’ etc to differentiate between each party.

Summary of Events

Landlord records show that on 7 September 2020, the resident made a report of ASB to the landlord. She stated she had been receiving ‘constant abuse’ from Neighbour A, who was also parking outside her house and ‘nearly’ touching her car. She also advised Neighbour A had CCTV cameras pointing at her property. She stated this made her feel uncomfortable and was affecting her mental health.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 September 2020 and advised she was unhappy with its response to concerns she had raised about Neighbour A. The landlord logged this as an informal complaint. The resident noted that ‘issues’ with Neighbour A had been going on for ‘a few months’ and while the landlord had already been out to visit all concerned parties, Police were now ‘involved’ with Neighbour A. The resident stated she wanted to ‘resolve the issues’ with her neighbour and to address the landlord’s lack of response to:
1. An email she sent to her Housing Officer on 17 August 2020.
2. A call she made on 7 September 2020, after which she was promised a call back from her Housing Officer but did not receive one.
Landlord records show it contacted the resident on 14 September 2020 to discuss her complaint in more detail. Its records show the resident advised she was unhappy she had not been responded to by her Housing Officer, having not received a call back on 7 September 2020 and not receiving a response to an email sent in August 2020. The resident also stated that her Housing Officer had been ‘dismissive of her concerns’ regarding the alleged ASB and that she was trying to ‘look after’ Neighbour B who was being harassed by Neighbour A. Regarding her complaint, the landlord wrote to her on 16 September 2020 to confirm it had escalated her complaint to its Investigation stage and it subsequently contacted her again on 18 September 2020 when it advised she would receive a written response the following week. Its records also note that during this later conversation, the resident advised that the reported issues with parking and Neighbour A’s CCTV camera had now been resolved.
On 18 September 2020, records show the resident’s Housing Officer also contacted her to discuss the parking issue. They advised the landlord had ‘spent an extensive amount of time trying to mediate’ and conducted home visits but was ‘now at a point where we can no (longer) facilitate mediating’. The landlord stated that parties had not adhered to unspecified agreements but, while noting that some neighbours appeared to not be allowing the resident to park outside her house, it clarified residents could park wherever they wanted to.
The landlord issued its complaint response on 23 September 2020. It advised it understood the complaint to be about the resident’s unhappiness with its response to her ‘concerns relating to a neighbour’. The landlord noted the following:
1. The resident had advised she originally contacted her Housing Officer by email on 16 August 2020 to complain about Neighbour A causing a parking issue and erecting a CCTV camera which was facing her property, but she had not received a reply.
2. According to its records, the resident’s Housing Officer was on leave on 16 August 2020 and as a result she should have received an Out of Office reply which directed her to an alternative contact in their absence.
3. It had discussed the matter with her Housing Officer, who stated that, having checked their inbox, they did not appear to have received an email from the resident that day. The landlord asked the resident to check her sent items and confirm the date she sent her email and the address she sent it to.
4. Regarding the resident’s call of 7 September 2020, following which she stated she had not received a call back, the landlord advised its records showed her Housing Officer had contacted her on 11 September 2020 and left a voicemail, before following up and speaking to her on 14 September 2020.
5. Her Housing Officer had investigated the issues raised and, after they had contacted the relevant parties, the resident had acknowledged that Neighbour A’s camera no longer pointed at her house and the parking issues had been resolved.
6. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint as it had not identified any service failure. It provided advice on how to escalate her complaint to its Review stage if the resident was unhappy with its response.
On 1 December 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident and issued her with a formal tenancy warning regarding ASB. It advised that, following a report of an incident on 7 November 2020 involving Neighbour A, it had reviewed CCTV evidence which it believed showed the resident being ‘inappropriate’, using foul language and being abusive towards Neighbour A. The warning noted that the landlord had attempted to discuss the matter with the resident but that she had declined to engage and had declined to sign an Acceptable Behaviour Contract. Records also note that on 25 November 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to advise she would be contacting this Service due to its failure to support her and Neighbour B and she no longer wished to be contacted.
On 15 December 2020, the resident emailed the landlord and advised she wanted to ‘put in a complaint’ to this Service regarding its ‘unprofessional and biased dealing of my complaint’ against her neighbour. She advised that the landlord’s investigation had left her feeling ‘vulnerable, unsupported and ignored’. The landlord replied the following day to acknowledge the escalation request and advised she would receive a response by 15 January 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord again, this time by phone, on 17 December 2020 and advised she wanted it noted that her Housing Officer was ‘threatening and intimidating to her’ and Neighbour B, although she did not provide any details. The resident stated this was related to a ‘threat’ made to make residents on the estate remove fencing. Internal landlord correspondence noted that the resident’s comment should be added to her open complaint.
On the same day, the resident also emailed the landlord to reiterate that her complaint was against two specific members of staff, her Housing Officer and an ASB Officer, and how they had dealt with their ‘investigation’ and treated the resident and Neighbour B. The resident acknowledged that her ASB Officer had written to her, but advised she had thrown the letter away without reading it and would not deal with either Officer again.
The landlord issued a response at its Review stage on 15 January 2021. It noted that the resident stated in her escalation request that she remained ‘dissatisfied with (the landlord’s) response regarding (her) concerns relating to a neighbour’ (Neighbour A) and specifically, the responses to her reports from her Housing Officer and ASB Officer. The landlord noted the following:
1. As part of its review, it had considered emails supplied to it by the resident and spoken to both the officers referred to and the member of staff who carried out its original complaint response.
2. It had not found any additional evidence that indicated it had not handled the resident’s complaint appropriately and it was satisfied that its officers had ‘returned communication to you in a reasonable way’.
3. Its decision to issue a tenancy warning to the resident had been caused by her own actions.
4. The resident had stated she was still facing parking difficulties outside her home and, as the matter was ongoing, it would continue to review reports and information provided to try and resolve the issue.
5. As the resident was unhappy with her ASB Officer, it proposed reallocating her case to a different officer. If the resident was happy with its offer, the new ASB Officer would be able to meet with her to review the case and ‘advise on further actions we can take to support you’.
On 26 January 2021, the landlord allocated the resident a new ASB Officer, who subsequently contacted her the following day to discuss the case further.
In February 2021, the resident moved out of the property and ceased being a tenant of the landlord.

Assessment and findings

In investigating this case, it is not for the Ombudsman to establish if ASB has occurred or who was responsible. Rather, it is to determine whether the landlord responded appropriately to any reports it received, whether it acted in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and whether its actions were fair and reasonable considering the circumstances of the case.
This Service notes that, aside from the issues considered within this complaint investigation, there is a history of allegations and counter allegations between the resident and a number of her neighbours, some of which were the subject of a previous complaint to the landlord from the resident in 2019. The Ombudsman acknowledges that ASB cases involving multiple parties can prove to be some of the most challenging cases for a landlord to address and resolve.
Additionally, it should be noted that when considering the part of the resident’s complaint which covers the landlord’s handling of ASB reports made against her, for reasons of third-party confidentiality the Ombudsman is not able to disclose certain details of the landlord’s interactions with her neighbours. However, the Ombudsman would like to assure the resident that it has considered all the information made available to it as part of this investigation, provided by both the resident and the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

Landlord records show the resident contacted it on 7 September 2020 to report that she had been harassed by Neighbour A, who had been parking outside her property and had fitted a CCTV camera that was pointed at her property. Landlord records show that it initially acted appropriately by acknowledging the resident’s report and her Housing Officer duly contacted her in a timely fashion to discuss her reports further, but the landlord does not appear to have opened an ASB case following the resident’s reports. This was not appropriate and not in line with its policies.
However, the actual steps taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s reports do appear to have been reasonable. Following her report of 7 September 2020, its tenancy records indicate it contacted her to clarify her concerns and acted appropriately by advising the steps it would take next, which involved speaking to Neighbour A and the resident’s friend, Neighbour B. The landlord regularly contacted the resident to provide updates and responded promptly to her requests for call backs, sometimes responding the same day. It is also noted that, in conversation with the resident on 18 September 2020, she confirmed Neighbour A had moved the position of the CCTV camera and the parking issue appeared to have been resolved. This indicates the landlord had responded appropriately to the resident’s reports and carried out the actions it said it would, such as speaking to Neighbour A. Sometime later, it also contacted the resident to offer mediation regarding ongoing issues with Neighbour A. This was a reasonable step for it to take and the kind of action this Service would expect to see a landlord use in attempting to resolve the issue. It is also noted that, after the conclusion of its internal complaint procedure, the landlord continued to work with the resident and ultimately helped to fast-track a move away from her property once she had identified a property to move to via a mutual exchange. This was appropriate and showed the landlord was prepared to be flexible when seeking a positive outcome to the issues the resident had been experiencing.
Despite this, as above, there is no record of a formal ASB case being opened regarding the resident’s reports and subsequently there is no clear indication of the case being appropriately closed or resolved. There is therefore also no clear timeline of how the landlord’s investigation progressed, and diary entries made regarding contact with the resident and actions taken are spread across her tenancy records and also a subsequent ASB case opened in September 2020 following counter-allegations made against the resident. This is not appropriate as the landlord is not able to appropriately demonstrate how it responded to the resident’s reports. It also means that, according to its records, the landlord was responding to the resident as an alleged perpetrator, rather than as the complainant. Although this Service acknowledges that the landlord was dealing with a situation that involved allegations and counter-allegations between the resident, Neighbour A and other neighbours, this was also not appropriate.
It is also noted that the resident provided the landlord with a crime reference number relating to the alleged harassment she was experiencing from Neighbour A along with details of a potential witness who was willing to speak on her behalf. While landlord records indicate it did liaise with the Police regarding the case – and it is also again noted that both parties accused the other of harassment –there is no record of the landlord specifically discussing the incident relevant to the crime reference number provided by the resident. Nor are there any records of the landlord attempting to contact the resident’s witness. This was unreasonable and, while there is no evidence that it would have approached the case differently or there would have been a different outcome had it done so, it raises questions over how thoroughly the landlord investigated the specific allegations made by the resident. From the information available to this investigation, there is not, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, any indication that the landlord gave greater credence to one side’s versions of events over another’s. However, it did not appear to have treated the resident fairly in this case by properly investigating and following up on the information she had provided. This Service acknowledges that the landlord’s records regarding other ASB cases seen during this investigation are otherwise thorough and provide a clear timeline of reasonable and appropriate actions and clearly defined and communicated case outcomes, including a further ASB case opened following reports made by the resident after the period covered by this investigation in January 2021. However, the landlord does not seem to have been consistent in how it responded to her reports from September 2020, which was not appropriate.
Returning to the resident’s original complaint, it is noted that she more specifically referred to not receiving a response from her Housing Officer when she had emailed them in August 2020 to make an ASB report. In its initial complaint response, the landlord advised the officer was not at work that day and the resident should have received an Out of Office reply if the email had been sent successfully. The landlord asked the resident to go back through her emails and confirm the date it was sent, and to which address it was sent. However, from the information available to this investigation, the resident did not do so and there is therefore no evidence that the landlord did receive the email referred to. This meant the landlord was not able to investigate this aspect of the complaint further and it was reasonable in responding that there was no evidence of service failure regarding its initial response. From the evidence that is available to this Service, after receiving the resident’s initial complaint, landlord correspondence notes there was no log of it receiving an email from the resident that day, while other contact with the resident, by email, phone and in person, had been noted within its tenancy and ASB logs. Once the landlord had received further contact from the resident on 7 September 2020, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, its records show it proceeded to take proportionate actions as outlined in Paragraph 23.

The landlord’s handling of ASB reports made against the resident

Landlord records show that, on 21 September 2020, it received a report from Neighbour C, alleging the resident had threatened them. The landlord responded promptly and acted appropriately by contacting the resident to discuss the report and arranging to visit her on 28 September 2020. When it visited the resident to discuss the allegation, she denied having spoken to Neighbour C and stated that there was a harassment campaign against her, and one particular neighbour was conspiring with others to make coordinated reports of ASB. Records indicate that the landlord acted reasonably by noting the resident’s allegations in response and took them into consideration in the context of investigation of the case.
The landlord received further ASB allegations against the resident from other neighbours in October 2020, including Neighbour A. Its records show that it responded promptly to those reports and carried out appropriate actions which, as noted above, due to third-party information concerns, this Service will not be able to detail further in this report. However, landlord records also show that while investigating the reports it acted appropriately and aimed to treat the resident fairly by contacting her to discuss the allegations made against her and to seek her side of the story. It also attempted to keep her updated, contacting her on several occasions during its investigation and it offered mediation between her and Neighbour A, which she declined. That the landlord offered mediation as a possible way of resolving ongoing issues between the resident and Neighbour A was appropriate, in line with its ASB policies and the kind of proportionate early intervention action this Service would expect to see in a case of this type. Records indicate that the landlord also acted appropriately by engaging with other relevant agencies throughout its investigation of the case.
When summarising the case on its ASB records, the landlord noted there had been ongoing allegations and counter allegations between the resident, Neighbour A and other neighbours but there had been insufficient evidence to support any allegations made. Correspondence seen by this investigation shows the landlord was consistent in advising all parties that it required evidence in order to take further enforcement action. This indicates it was seeking to treat the resident and other parties fairly, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, while also trying to manage their expectations.
However, after being provided with footage by Neighbour A from an incident that occurred on 7 November 2020, the landlord served the resident with a formal tenancy warning. Having reviewed the footage, it determined the resident had been ‘inappropriate’ and verbally abusive towards Neighbour A. Its records indicate that the landlord acted reasonably by making efforts to discuss the issue with the resident before taking further action. However, when she did not engage, the landlord took the step of issuing a formal warning which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was a proportionate response. This Service notes that in subsequent correspondence, the resident has advised the landlord that she did not accept the warning.

The landlord’s complaint handling

As noted in Paragraph 26, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord responded to the resident’s initial complaint in a reasonable and appropriate manner. It responded promptly, contacted her to discuss her complaint and ensure it understood the issues raised and provided a written response within the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
However, in mid-December 2020, some months after receiving its initial complaint response, the resident advised the landlord she wanted to complain to this Service regarding how it had handled her complaint against her neighbour. The landlord treated this as a complaint escalation request and reopened the resident’s previous complaint. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was an appropriate action for it to take and demonstrated good practice. It allowed the landlord the opportunity to link the issues and provide a thorough response to the resident’s concerns as a whole. In addition, when the resident also raised concerns over the conduct of an ASB Officer, which had not been referred to in her original complaint, the landlord agreed to consider this within its Review response. This was also a reasonable position for it to take and meant that it treated the resident fairly, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. The landlord also noted her comments made on 17 December 2020, when she stated she believed her Housing Officer had been ‘threatening and intimidating’ towards her and Neighbour B. Internal landlord correspondence noted that it would address this in its Review response.
The landlord’s Review response subsequently advised it ‘had not been able to find any additional evidence that (the landlord) has failed to handle your complaint appropriately’ and that ‘from the correspondence available…the officers have returned communication to you in a reasonable way’. It also noted that the resident had been sent a tenancy warning ‘as a result of her own actions’, which it enclosed within its complaint response for her reference.
While the landlord was, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, entitled to rely on its Investigation stage response regarding the fact that it had responded to her initial ASB reports in an appropriate way, it is noted that the Review response did not provide any detail regarding how it had considered its subsequent handling of the resident’s ASB reports and any open case. It also did not make any reference to the resident’s allegation that her Housing Officer had acted in a threatening manner towards her and Neighbour B, which it had noted in December 2020 and stated would be addressed within the Review response. As the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles set out, identifying actions that can put a matter right is essential for effective complaint handling. It is equally important however that any such actions identified are then carried out and it was therefore not appropriate that the landlord did not go on to address this in its Review response. As part of a thorough complaint response, this Service would have expected to see an explanation or summary of the steps the landlord had taken to investigate her reports and how it had progressed her case. Additionally, while this Service acknowledges that the resident did provide any details regarding how or when she felt her Housing Officer had acted in a threatening manner towards her and Neighbour B, nevertheless, to demonstrate it had taken her complaint seriously and was seeking to treat her fairly, the landlord’s response should have provided some further detail regarding how it had investigated her allegation, even if its investigations had found no evidence to support her claims. That it did not address the matter within its Review response at all was not appropriate and meant it did not properly respond to the concerns raised by the resident during the complaint process.
However, within its Review response, having acknowledged the resident remained unhappy with her Housing Officer and ASB Officer, the landlord offered to reassign the existing ASB case to a new officer. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was a reasonable action for it to take and indicated an attempt to try and maintain, or re-establish, a good landlord/tenant relationship. It was also an appropriate step to take as a means of trying to resolve the resident’s overall dissatisfaction with how it had handled her ASB reports to date.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of ASB reports made against the resident.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

While there is no evidence that the landlord was at fault regarding its initial response to the resident’s ASB reports, once they were logged, a separate ASB case should have been opened. This would have allowed the landlord to demonstrate how it responded to the reports and investigated the resident’s concerns in a consistent fashion. It would also have allowed it to be clearer regarding when the resident was being considered as a complainant and as an alleged perpetrator.
While it would also have been preferable for the landlord to have showed it had properly considered information provided by the resident, specifically a crime reference number and details of a potential witness, there is insufficient evidence that this caused the resident detriment as the landlord was able to evidence that it was otherwise investigating the case properly and remained in regular contact with the resident throughout. It is also noted that that a crime reference number is not necessarily evidence that a crime had been committed and there is no indication from the information provided to this Service that the Police took further action. This Service has not made a finding of service failure regarding the handling of the resident’s ASB reports as, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord generally responded reasonably and carried out appropriate actions while investigating what was undoubtedly a complex case.

The landlord’s handling of ASB reports made against the resident

The landlord responded to the allegations made against the resident in accordance with its policies and it took reasonable action regarding the issues raised. It gave the resident the opportunity to discuss the allegations made against her and it considered her counter-allegations. It was reasonable in advising all parties that it required evidence to be able to take any enforcement action. However, once it had been provided with evidence that it considered serious enough to warrant action, it was reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with a formal warning.

The landlord’s complaint handling

While the landlord responded to the resident’s original complaint in a timely fashion, and it acted reasonably in agreeing to re-open her complaint and escalate it to its Review stage once she got back in touch some months later, its Review response then did not appropriately respond to the issues she raised. It had noted her additional concerns regarding staff conduct and agreed to address these in its response but then did not adequately do so, instead relying on its initial Investigation stage response.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £50 for its failure to provide the resident with a full response to her complaint at the Review stage.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider:
1. Providing further training to staff who receive ASB reports to ensure that cases are opened appropriately and in accordance with its policies.
2. Reminding its Complaints Team to ensure its complaint responses consider all issues raised, or to provide an explanation where they are not going to comment further on a matter.