Clarion Housing Association Limited (202220769)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220769

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 February 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 the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s data in relation to her being identified as the complainant to the alleged perpetrator.
2. Handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB), including the communication with the resident throughout the case, and the compensation offered.
3. Staff calling residents from personal mobile phones.
4. Response regarding the provision of CCTV.
5. Handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.” In line with the Scheme the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and should be referred to and/or investigated by the Information Commissioner’s Office (see https://ico.org.uk):
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s data in relation to her being identified as the complainant to the alleged perpetrator.

Background

The resident has been the shared owner of the two-bedroomed first floor flat since 15 March 2021.

Summary of events

As part of the investigation, this Service asked the landlord to provide information regarding the resident’s reports of ASB. According to the information provided, the resident first reported an incident on 19 February 2022. The report was of verbal abuse and threats towards her partner by her neighbour. The resident stated previous incidents had not been reported and she had “let him get away with it”. She said the incidents were more regular and needed to stop. The landlord’s records suggest the resident continued to email it but had not received a response.
On 16 March 2022, the landlord called the resident and confirmed the details of the incident on 19 February 2022. The landlord asked the resident if it had been reported to the police. The resident said she felt it was a waste of time. The landlord told the resident that without witnesses or an incident number, it could not investigate the issue. The landlord agreed to send diary sheets out and advised the resident to report the incident to the police. It agreed to speak to the relevant team to see what action had been taken and for a call to be made to the resident with an update. The landlord and resident agreed no further action would be taken and the case was closed.
On 20 March 2022, the resident reported an incident of verbal abuse from the neighbour to herself when she was coming home with her dogs.
The landlord called the resident on 23 March 2022. She informed it of a further incident on 22 March 2022. She said the neighbour had tried to access her flat and this resulted in verbal abuse and the door being damaged. The resident confirmed she called the police. Due to fear of what would happen, she called another neighbour and her uncle. She left the flat with her uncle but returned with her partner when the police arrived. The neighbour was arrested for criminal damage, threats to kill and racial verbal abuse (aimed at the neighbour who the resident had called). The police boarded the door, and the resident went to stay with friends due to the property being inaccessible. The landlord agreed to call the resident on 25 March 2022.
The resident called the landlord on 23 March 2022 to confirm the neighbour had been arrested the previous night. The landlord tried to forward the call to the appropriate officer but was unsuccessful. The landlord’s notes state it sent an email asking the officer to contact the resident. The resident provided video footage of the incident which was viewed by the landlord.
On 24 March 2022, the resident returned a missed call from the landlord. She confirmed the neighbour had not been charged and no further action was to be taken. She said the police had not confirmed it, but the neighbour could be charged with criminal damage for the door. There is no evidence to confirm if the neighbour was subsequently charged. When asked, the resident agreed to support legal action if the landlord had enough evidence. The landlord agreed to call the resident on 25 March 2022, however there is no evidence of this call.
The resident provided an update and evidence to the landlord on 26 March 2022. From the evidence provided to us, it is not clear what this update and evidence was.
There is evidence from the landlord to confirm that it spoke to another neighbour about the incident on 22 March 2022. While this is noted, due to data protection, no further information will be included in this report.
The landlord spoke to the resident again on 1 April 2022. She confirmed she would not be returning home and would be happy to support and attend court action.
On 4 April 2022, the resident spoke to the landlord. It is not clear from the evidence what the reason for the call was, or if it was transferred to the officer dealing with the case.
On 6 April 2022, the resident and her partner submitted a complaint which included the following issues:
1. An alleged breach of data protection led to the incident on 22 March 2022. The landlord’s legal team was dealing with the incident, but the resident believed the landlord had put them at risk.
2. The neighbour attempted to break into the flat while shouting verbal abuse. The neighbour was arrested.
3. The door was boarded, and the property was inaccessible. The resident had to live elsewhere which caused huge stress and anxiety for them both.
4. The resident gave the landlord the chance to resolve the issues amicably and appropriately before taking legal action.
On 6 April 2022, the landlord called the resident to obtain her consent to use the video footage in court. The resident asked the landlord if it was evicting the neighbour; she was told no.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 April 2022 for a response to the complaint.
The landlord applied for and was successful in obtaining an interim injunction order on 12 April 2022.
On 20 April 2022, the landlord told the resident it had obtained an interim order against the neighbour. It explained the content of the order and agreed to send her a copy once it had been served, and a copy had been sent to the police. The resident asked the landlord if the order could be amended to include her partner. The landlord informed the resident of a return hearing scheduled for 3 May 2022, but that any further incidents should be reported to the police. The resident asked the landlord about the data breach and stated things would not have escalated if her name had not been disclosed. The landlord agreed to log this as a complaint.
Following the call on 20 April 2022, the landlord asked for a complaint to be logged. It passed on the email from the resident originally sent on 6 April 2022.
The landlord called the resident on 21 April 2022 to confirm if its email regarding the order had been received. She confirmed receipt and asked again if the order could be amended. The landlord said it would speak to its legal team about it and would contact her again with the outcome of the next court date.
The landlord’s records suggest the complaint acknowledgement was sent on 26 April 2022; however, a copy has not been provided as evidence.
On 26 April 2022, the landlord’s internal records confirm it sent the details of the complaint to the relevant staff and asked for feedback by 5 May 2022.
On 27 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord. She said it was 21 days since the complaint was made but no response had been received. The landlord confirmed the complaint had been raised and was being investigated.
The resident chased a complaint response on 4 May 2022. The landlord replied to the resident the same day. It stated the officer who allegedly breached data protection no longer worked for the landlord. It could not interview him about the allegations, but it had looked through the system notes. It could not find any evidence to suggest her identity had been shared with the neighbour. It asked the resident if she had any evidence which would confirm the allegations. The landlord said without evidence, it would not be able to confirm if a data breach had occurred. The resident said she knew the landlord had shared information with the neighbour and it was trying to “fob them off”. She informed the landlord she was taking legal advice and felt let down by the landlord. The resident asked for the complaint to be given to a manager.
On 9 May 2022, the resident told the landlord she wanted to make an executive complaint and asked for details on how to do this.
On 11 May 2022, the landlord called the resident to confirm it had obtained a final injunction order against the neighbour and sent her a copy the following day. It advised it came with the power of arrest so any breach of the order should be reported to the police.
In response to the email dated 9 May 2022, the landlord emailed the resident on 16 May 2022 and thanked her for the contact regarding the complaint. It confirmed the query would be sent to the team dealing with the issues and that team would contact her directly.
On 18 May 2022, the resident asked the landlord for an update on the complaint. The landlord replied and apologised for the delay. It confirmed the investigation was almost complete, but it was waiting for a response from the data protection team regarding the alleged data breach. It aimed to respond by 27 May 2022.
On 20 May 2022, the landlord’s records show it concluded there was no evidence to corroborate the allegations of the data breach. The landlord noted that due to complaints and counter complaints from both residents, it is likely the neighbour assumed the complainant’s identity.
The landlord emailed the resident on 21 May 2022 and confirmed the complaint was still ongoing. Regarding the request for an executive complaint to be made, it advised the resident a peer review could be requested on receipt on the stage 1 resolution letter.
On 24 May 2022, the landlord emailed the stage 1 response letter to the resident. It confirmed the complaint was about an alleged data breach following the resident’s report of a neighbour’s breach of tenancy. This led to a violent incident from the neighbour. The complaint was also about staff attitude. The complaint response confirmed:
1. An issue of feeding foxes was first reported by the resident on 11 September 2021. The landlord sent letters to all residents asking them to stop leaving food out. The first breach was raised in November 2021, but closed in December 2021. A warning letter was sent to the resident’s neighbour on 21 January 2022 and following a further breach, a second letter was sent on 2 February 2022.
2. The case was transferred to another officer who visited the location on 15 February 2022. No food was found, but the neighbour was given advice before the tenancy breach process was closed on 18 February 2022.
3. The incident at the property took place on 22 March 2022 and the neighbour was arrested by the police.
4. The landlord obtained an interim injunction order on 12 April 2022 while waiting for a full injunction on 3 May 2022.
5. The landlord confirmed it would have told the neighbour a complaint had been made, but there was no evidence to suggest the resident’s identity was disclosed. It confirmed many complaints had been raised by both parties so it could be the neighbour suspected her identity.
6. The data breach had been investigated by the data protection team who confirmed there was no evidence of a breach. The resident was given another opportunity to provide evidence to support the allegation.
7. The landlord did not uphold the complaint.
On 16 June 2022, the resident emailed the landlord. She stated the breach was not connected to the fox complaint. She confirmed she had reported verbal abuse to the landlord on 17 February 2022. The landlord had contacted the neighbour to discuss this and had then called the resident back to advise what had been discussed. There is no evidence of a response from the landlord to this email.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 20 June 2022, asking why the issue had not been resolved. The resident confirmed they had been out of the property for 3 months.
On 6 July 2022, the resident sent an email to the landlord which stated she had not received a response from it. She advised she would be seeking legal advice if a response was not received within the next 7 days.
On 14 July 2022, the resident contacted her MP office regarding the problem she was having with the landlord responding. The MP’s office emailed the landlord on 19 July 2022 to ask for an update, or a date as to when one could be expected.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 July 2022 to inform them of a further incident with the neighbour. She had called the police due to the neighbour making threats to kill. She confirmed they had only moved back on 27 June 2022 as it took that long for the door to be repaired. The landlord’s evidence noted there was not enough evidence to support the breach of the injunction and the case was closed.
The resident emailed the landlord and her MP on 21 July 2022. While confirming the incident from 20 July 2022, she provided information of another incident from that day. The resident said the neighbour had threatened to kill her partner and other residents and had assaulted another neighbour. The police arrested the neighbour. She said the police had not confirmed if the neighbour had been charged for the incident in March, and she said the landlord had not replied to her emails from May 2022. The landlord called her the same day to confirm the details of the incident. She confirmed she had not witnessed the incident, but her partner had told her what happened. The landlord agreed to speak to the police and call her back the next day.
The landlord called the resident on 22 July 2022. It advised it was still waiting to hear if the neighbour had been arrested for a breach of the injunction. The landlord obtained the resident’s partner’s number so it could call him to get a statement. The landlord advised the resident to call the police if there were any further incidents.
On 22 July 2022, the landlord called the resident’s partner. A voicemail was left advising a further call would be made later that day, but there was no answer to that call. The landlord’s records indicate it was to chase the police for an update and would then call the resident and her partner to take statements.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 August 2022 to confirm no one had contacted her with what action was to be taken.
On 9 August 2022, the landlord’s internal records show it asked for confirmation regarding the consultation that was done in relation to CCTV at the block. It confirmed consultation did take place, but the residents were not in favour.
On 17 August 2022, the landlord called the resident and apologised for the lack of contact. The landlord confirmed all the paperwork had been sent to the solicitor, however it is not clear from the evidence what this paperwork was for.
On 1 September 2022, the landlord’s internal case notes confirmed there was not enough supporting evidence from independent witnesses to corroborate the alleged breach that occurred on 20 July 2022. The landlord’s records confirm it was not able to take any further action and the case was closed. It referenced evidence of a further breach against the neighbour and that the resident had been informed the case had been passed to legal. There is no evidence to confirm if this was related to the previous incidents reported by the resident.
On 22 September 2022, the MP emailed the landlord to ask when it would respond to the resident’s emails. There is no evidence of a response to the MP.
The resident confirmed via email to the landlord on 9 November 2022 that she had still not received a response.
On 14 November 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm her email had been sent to the relevant team who would contact her directly.
The evidence suggests there was a call between the landlord and resident around this time but there is no evidence to support the conversation. Following the call, the resident emailed the landlord on 15 November 2022. She confirmed she had not been consulted about the installation of CCTV. She said the landlord had indicated this was done in 2019, but the resident said many new residents had moved in since then. She asked why CCTV was not automatically included to ensure the safety of residents and it felt like the landlord did not care about their safety. The resident highlighted that not all the points from her complaint had been addressed. The incident had taken place 8 months earlier, and she said the time taken to deal with a complaint was a “shambles”.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation of the complaint on 22 November 2022. It advised a member of the team would be in contact within 20 working days.
On 6 December 2022, the resident started a webchat with the landlord. She relayed her complaint details and said she wanted to complain to an executive about its failure to safeguard her family. The landlord informed her it would send her query to the relevant team, but the resident said she wanted senior management to deal with it. The landlord confirmed it had passed the query to an officer and had advised she wanted a manager to call her.
Later that day, the landlord spoke to the resident about the complaint that had been responded to in May 2022. She told the landlord:
1. She was unhappy with how the complaint had been dealt with.
2. She had made a complaint about her neighbour in September 2021 and the officer had told him who had made the complaint. She said the neighbour would confirm the officer told him it was her that had complained.
3. The officer dealing with the complaint used his own mobile phone which is why nothing is recorded.
4. The neighbour was still living in the property. She was in court with him the previous day about the incident in March 2022.
5. No one had contacted her since the incident in March 2022 when her door was kicked in. No one had shown any empathy towards her, and it had caused mental health issues.
6. The CCTV consultation seemed to have been completed in 2019, yet many new residents lived there now. She had been told a meeting had been held in August 2022, but she said residents were not involved.
7. As a resolution, she wanted an apology from the landlord and for it to admit fault. The resident asked for a face-to-face chat to discuss what had happened.
The resident contacted this Service on 6 December 2022. She advised she had reported a neighbour for a breach of tenancy and the landlord had told them who had complained. This resulted in the incident in March 2022. She stated the landlord had refused to put safety measures in place and would not take responsibility for making the situation worse. She said there was no contact from May 2022 and the MP did not receive any responses. As a resolution, the resident asked for safety measures to be installed and for the landlord to accept responsibility for making the situation worse due to the data breach.
On 23 December 2022, the landlord emailed its final complaint response to the resident. The landlord confirmed the following:
1. It was not policy to share identity of complainants unless unavoidable. There was no evidence found to confirm the resident was identified as the complainant.
2. It was not policy for personal phones to be used and any officer doing so was not acting in line with guidance. It was unable to confirm this with the officer as he no longer worked for the landlord.
3. There was no evidence that the incident that happened was the result of service failure, therefore this element of the complaint was not upheld.
4. The incident that happened was a police matter and it could not take responsibility for the neighbour’s actions.
5. It took steps to protect the resident by getting an interim injunction which was followed by a full injunction with the power of arrest.
6. Staff acted appropriately on receipt of the complaint and quickly applied to the court for the interim injunction. It believed the steps taken by the staff were appropriate and the policy was followed.
7. It did not have the same powers for dealing with leaseholder behaviour as it did for social tenants and did not have the same powers as the police.
8. The landlord apologised for the damage to the door but advised under the terms of her lease, it was not responsible. She was correctly advised to claim off her own insurance.
9. It was only contractually responsible for providing services within the lease which are paid for by the resident. CCTV was not included and to introduce this, a consultation exercise would be required. A consultation was completed in February 2020, but residents were not in favour.
10. The landlord identified several service failures where it acknowledged it could have done better. These included:
  1. Several occasions when it did not provide an update when it said it would.
  2. It did not confirm if the court order could be amended to include the resident’s partner.
  3. It did not confirm the case was closed once the order was obtained.
  4. It did not update the resident with the outcome of the incident on 20 July 2022 until the middle of August 2022.
11. The landlord offered £250 for the lack of communication, the inconvenience this caused, and for the resident having to continuously chase for responses to ASB.
The resident emailed the landlord on 10 January 2023. She told the landlord she had contacted this Service and was seeking legal advice. She told the landlord of a further data breach from a different officer. She also said a previous employee would testify that he used his personal mobile phone and that a meeting had taken place with the neighbour where the information on the complaint was shared. The resident did not agree with the compensation offered. She believed she should be compensated for the money she lost in the 3 months she could not live in the property. The resident asked for a response with acceptable compensation or the landlord’s final position.
The landlord replied to the resident on 11 January 2023. It confirmed the response provided concluded the final stage of the complaint process and she could refer the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s interim complaint policy states a complaint must be acknowledged and logged at stage one within 10 working days of receipt. The landlord aims to respond within 20 working days. If a peer review is requested, the landlord will log and acknowledge requests in 10 working days and aims to respond within 40 working days. If at any stage, the landlord is unable to meet a deadline, it will communicate with the resident and provide a date by which a response can be expected.
The landlord’s CCTV policy states:
1. It assists with prevention and detection of crime, ASB and criminal behaviour. It can act as a deterrent and increase the feeling of safety within a community. It can help bring civil action following damage caused and can help maintain the security of buildings, staff, and visitors.
2. It will consider all requests for CCTV and will only permit its use when considered appropriate and proportionate to the situation and identified need.
3. Where it is proposed that a CCTV system will be funded through service charges, it will consult with residents in line with its legal obligations.
The landlord’s compensation policy outlines examples of when discretionary compensation can be awarded to residents. The policy includes award bands ranging from £50 to £700 and states compensation payments will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
The landlord’s ASB policy states the following:
1. It may take legal action under the relevant legislation available to it.
2. It is committed to taking effective action using the powers available to it, where it considers an effective remedy can be provided. It recognises residents and other agencies share this responsibility and it may not always be appropriate for it to take the lead.
3. Where criminal activity occurs, it expects the residents to report this to the police. It expects the police to act where there is sufficient evidence to do so. The landlord will not generally lead on resolving such incidents, but in some serious cases if it is appropriate to do so, it will explore options for taking its own legal action such as ex-parte injunctions.
4. It recognises the impact ASB can have on lives. It is important that complainants and victims of ASB are clear on when it can intervene and the sanctions available.
5. Victims and witnesses of ASB should receive a tailored response and appropriate support and advice.
6. It should respond sensitively to the victim and adopt high standards of confidentiality when dealing with victims and witnesses.

Handling of reports of ASB, communication and compensation

It is not the role of this Service to establish whether someone has committed ASB, but to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. We will determine whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, considering its own policies and procedures.
The resident stated she did not receive a response from the landlord when she reported her neighbour following a verbal assault and threats to her partner in February 2022. When the landlord identified that the relevant officer had left the organisation, it contacted the resident directly. This was reasonable; however, it is recommended that a generic email is available to residents rather than individual email addresses. This would prevent missed contact when an officer is emailed directly and would ensure residents receive responses in a timely manner. As there was no witness to the incident and the resident had not contacted the police, the landlord advised it could not take any further action. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s response reasonable as evidence is required before any enforcement action can be taken against alleged perpetrators of ASB.
The landlord contacted the resident on 23 March 2022 following further incidents on 20 March and 22 March 2022. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord made contact within an acceptable timeframe. The resident had called the police who attended and arrested the neighbour. It is evident that the resident felt scared and vulnerable and had to leave the property with a relative. It is expected that the landlord should have completed a risk assessment with the resident to assess the impact of these incidents on the resident and any vulnerabilities. Although this Service has requested a copy of the assessment, the landlord has confirmed it is not able to provide one. In the Ombudsman’s view, it is unreasonable for the landlord not to complete such a risk assessment as standard. It is unreasonable that the landlord is unable to provide this and raises concerns around the landlord’s record keeping and ASB practices.
The ASB policy states “It is important that complainants and victims of ASB are clear on when the landlord can intervene and the sanctions available”. As the incident was a criminal act, in line with the policy, the police were expected to lead on the investigation. When the resident asked if the landlord was going to evict the neighbour, it told her no. The landlord should have followed its policy and informed the resident of the actions available to it. This would have set the resident’s expectations from an early stage and would have made it clear what action it could take. There is no evidence to suggest this information was provided to the resident until the final complaint response. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable.
The landlord followed its ASB policy and successfully applied and obtained an interim court order on 12 April 2022. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord responded appropriately. It used the sanctions available to it, collated the evidence and then applied to court within a reasonable timeframe. Following the interim injunction, a full injunction order was obtained on 3 May 2022 and was enforceable by the police with the power of arrest attached. While it is noted the landlord has not provided confirmation of the contact it had with the neighbour, or the evidence it submitted, it must be assumed the court had enough evidence to support the injunctions granted.
When the resident reported a further incident on 20 July 2022, the landlord was informed by the police that they could not confirm if the order had been breached as there were no other witnesses.
During this period, there is evidence which demonstrated the landlord failed to provide updates to the resident, or delayed communication with her. This caused the resident to contact the landlord unnecessarily and invest time and effort in obtaining updates. For example, when the resident asked if her partner could be added to the order, it did not confirm if this was possible and did not amend the order. When the order was obtained, it failed to inform the resident that the ASB case had been closed. These communication failures were however identified in the landlord’s final complaint response. The landlord apologised to the resident and offered £250 compensation as redress of the service failures identified. While this is noted, it would have been appropriate for it to confirm how it had learned from the service failures it had identified and what steps it was to take to improve on these.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the ASB reports and the compensation offered. It is acknowledged that the landlord acted reasonably in relation to the initial contact from the resident when the incidents were reported. It also took the appropriate legal action available to it within a reasonable timeframe and provided sufficient evidence to obtain the injunction orders. There were however occasions throughout the case where the landlord failed to communicate effectively and in an appropriate timeframe. The landlord identified some of these failures within its final complaint response, however it did not take the opportunity to address how it would improve service delivery in the future. While the compensation amount offered is at an appropriate level for the communications faults, a finding of maladministration is still appropriate.
Further, during this investigation, the landlord was asked by this Service to confirm the clause from the lease which confirmed the landlord was not responsible for the repairs to the door that were needed after the March 2022 incident. The landlord has reviewed the lease and has confirmed the resident should not have been referred to its insurers. The landlord has confirmed it will contact the resident to understand if any expenses had been incurred and it would then review the compensation offer. It is a concern that incorrect information was given to the resident which may have impacted her financially.
In the Ombudsman opinion, the landlord should reimburse any costs incurred by the resident associated with the door repair. The Ombudsman is unable to determine that the property was uninhabitable due to the door repair (and that reimbursement of temporary accommodation is therefore necessary) but it is unreasonable that the landlord did not answer the resident’s repeated concerns on this and failed to identify that it had a repair responsibility.

Staff calling residents from personal mobile phones

At both stages of the complaint response, the landlord informed the resident that the officer alleged to have shared her details no longer worked for the organisation. Due to this, it was not possible to conduct an interview regarding the allegations. This was a reasonable response from the landlord as it is not appropriate to contact employees once they have left the organisation. The resident told the landlord that the neighbour would confirm the officer used his personal phone. There is no evidence the landlord followed this up. Due to the negative relationship between the neighbours, it is of the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord approached this matter reasonably.
The resident told the landlord of a previous employee who had confirmed he used his personal phone. This information was only provided after the final response letter; therefore, the landlord did not have an opportunity to respond to this as part of the complaint. As this was a previous employee, it was reasonable for the landlord not to follow this up.
This Service does not find maladministration in relation to staff using personal phones to contact residents. The landlord advised it was against guidance for employees to use personal phones. It was not appropriate to interview officers who had left the organisation, nor was it appropriate to ask the neighbour for confirmation. The landlord, however, could have shown it had listened to the resident’s concerns regarding this alleged practice. It would have been reasonable for it to provide all employees with a reminder of the guidance on the use of personal phones when contacting residents. This is recorded as a recommendation later in the report.

Provision of CCTV

The provision of CCTV at the block was not raised until a review of the initial complaint response was requested. It was reasonable of the landlord to confirm its contractual responsibilities contained within the lease, which are then charged to residents. It was also appropriate for it to remind the resident that it would need to conduct a consultation exercise before CCTV could be installed.
The evidence provided by the landlord suggests the consultation was carried out 2 years prior to the complaint being made. The resident informed the landlord that many new neighbours had moved in since then so would not have been consulted on.
The Ombudsman does not find maladministration in the landlord’s response to the request for CCTV as its advice was in line with its CCTV policy. However, as this had been brought to the landlord’s attention, it would have been reasonable for it to show that it considered the resident’s point about the number of newer neighbours and offered to repeat the consultation exercise. There is no evidence to suggest this was offered and a recommendation is made below in this regard.

Associated complaint

The resident first submitted a complaint to the landlord on 6 April 2022. It was logged on 20 April 2022. It was acknowledged 12 working days after the complaint was submitted. The landlord failed to follow its own timescale for acknowledging a complaint which this Service finds unreasonable.
The landlord’s records suggest an acknowledgement letter was sent; however, the stage 1 complaint response suggests it was done verbally. There is no evidence of the acknowledgement in the information provided. It is therefore difficult to determine if the complaint was fully understood, and if the landlord addressed all issues raised in its response letter.
In line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), the landlord is expected to manage the resident’s expectations from the outset. It is appropriate for the landlord to provide a timeframe as to when a response could be expected. It is unclear if this information was given to the resident. This led to the resident investing time and effort contacting the landlord on 5 occasions throughout April and May 2022 to ask for a response to the complaint. Only on 18 May 2022 did the landlord indicate it would respond on 27 May 2022. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable. It is noted that this would exceed the timeframe to respond to a stage 1 complaint. This raises concern around the landlord’s complaint management and timeframes to respond.
The stage 1 response was sent on 24 May 2022, 23 working days from when it was logged. While the landlord apologised for the delay, it would have been appropriate for it to explain why it was delayed. It is expected, and is detailed within the policy, that if additional time is needed, this should be communicated to the resident. While the complaint response was not excessively outside of the landlord’s policy response time, the landlord only gave the resident a response date once she had chased it. The Ombudsman finds it unreasonable that the resident had to consistently chase the landlord.
The response referred to the alleged data breach being after the resident complained about the neighbour feeding foxes. Upon receipt of the response, the resident told the landlord the breach was not connected to that issue. As per section 4.2 of the Code, within the complaint acknowledgement, landlords must set out their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking. If any aspect of the complaint is unclear, the resident must be asked for clarification and the full definition agreed between both parties. As per above, there is no evidence of the acknowledgement to the resident. It is therefore difficult to determine if the landlord understood and responded to the points raised within the complaint. This raises concern regarding the landlord’s record keeping and complaint handling.
Throughout June to November 2022, there is evidence of the resident emailing the landlord for an update on the complaint. Emails were also sent from the resident’s MP who had been made aware of the complaint. While the landlord was contacting the resident about the ASB issues, there was no evidence of a response to her or her MP regarding the complaint. It is expected that on receipt of such consistent emails, the landlord should recognise that the resident remained dissatisfied. The lack of response to the resident and the MP raises concern regarding the landlord’s contact management, communication, and complaint handling.
The complaint was finally escalated by the landlord on 14 November 2022. It was acknowledged on 22 November 2022, offering a complaint response date of 22 December 2022. It is not clear from the evidence what correspondence was used to escalate the complaint. It is therefore unclear when the request was received, what information it contained, and ultimately if the landlord complied with its policy in terms of timescales. This supports the concern around the landlord’s record keeping, communication and complaint handling.
The landlord spoke to the resident about the stage 2 complaint on 6 December 2022. There is evidence of the detail collected during the call including the resolution requested by the resident. This information was appropriately passed to senior management to respond as requested by the resident.
The final complaint response was sent to the resident on 23 December 2022, 16 working days after it was escalated. The response primarily focussed on the findings linked to the data breach and the subsequent ASB. While the landlord provided the outcome to the issues raised, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have signposted the resident to the Information Commissioner’s Office if she wished to take the data breach issue further. The final response did not address the complaint handling delays and did not account for all the failures identified within this report.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. There is evidence of missed timescales, poor record keeping and poor communication with the resident. The landlord did not provide indicative response times which led to the resident investing time and effort in contacting the landlord and her MP unnecessarily for updates. There was a lack of recognition and communication in response to the resident’s clear continued dissatisfaction following the stage 1 response. While it is acknowledged that the landlord identified some failures in respect of the ASB, it did not acknowledge the failures identified with the handling of the complaint or address how it would take learning from the case.
It is noted that the landlord did not offer any compensation for the complaint handling. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation in recognition of the service failures. Further detail can be found in the orders section of this report.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB), including the communication with the resident throughout the case and the compensation offered.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s staff calling residents from personal mobile phones.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response regarding the provision of CCTV.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord acted in line with its policy in relation to the actions available to it. Its communication with the resident however was delayed and inconsistent. It should have provided clear information at the outset as to what powers it had when dealing with the behaviour of the neighbour. This would have managed the resident’s expectations. There were several occasions where the landlord failed to update the resident which led to her making unnecessary contact with the landlord. The landlord utilised the complaint process to identify its own failures but did not take the opportunity to address how it would improve its services because of these. There were additional failings in regard to the lack of a risk assessment and an incorrect stance on its responsibility for the door repair.
The landlord acted and responded appropriately and reasonably in relation to the allegations that staff use personal phones to contact residents. The officer alleged to have used his phone no longer worked for the organisation therefore it was not appropriate to follow this up.
It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm its contractual responsibilities regarding the provision of services within the lease.
There is evidence of missed timescales, poor record keeping and poor communication with the resident in relation to the complaint handling. There was a lack of recognition and communication in response to the resident’s clear continued dissatisfaction following the stage 1 response. The landlord did not utilise the complaint process to identify and acknowledge the failures or address how it would take learning from the case.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Write to the resident to:
  1. apologise for the failures identified in this report;
  2. if it has not already done so, ask for copies of expenses that the resident went to in order to repair the door so that it may reimburse these.
2. Pay the resident the £600 compensation. This is made up of the following:
  1. £450 for the time and trouble caused by its failures in the handling of the ASB reports (inclusive of the £250 it offered in the final complaint response letter);
  2. £150 for the failures identified within the handling of the complaint.
This payment should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any service charge account.
This Service published a special report in October 2022 which referred to the landlord’s complaint handling. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should provide this Service with an update on the progress made against the recommendations from within this report.
This Service has recently issued a wider order (202214653) for the landlord to conduct a review of its practices in relation to its handling of ASB, the presence of vulnerability in ASB case management and its management of knowledge and information in relation to its handling of ASB reports. This order will not be repeated within this report; however, the landlord should inform this Service of its intentions regarding the order made within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should re-issue all employees with the guidance regarding the use of personal phones when contacting residents.
The landlord should consider carrying out a consultation exercise to confirm if current residents wish for CCTV to be installed; if it decides not to, it should explain its decision to the resident.
The landlord should explore the benefits of introducing a generic email address for ASB rather than residents emailing individual emails.
The landlord should reply to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions regarding these recommendations.