Dartford Borough Council (202203494)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203494

Dartford Borough Council

18 October 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1.     The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbours.

2.     This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3.     The resident is a tenant of the landlord’s property, a one-bedroom ground floor flat. She has lived in the property since April 2019. Prior to moving to this address, the resident was in supported housing.

4.     The resident has known vulnerabilities which affect affecting her mental and physical health. 

5.     ‘Neighbour A’ moved into the flat above the resident in January 2020 and transferred via a management move in June 2021. ‘Neighbour B’ moved into the flat above the resident in July 2021. 

Summary of events

6.     The resident has reported noise nuisance and ASB from occupants in the above flat since moving in, in 2019. This Service will consider the landlord’s handling of reports from 2020 onwards, and more specifically, its handling of the formal complaint in September 2022, because the Ombudsman is limited to investigating only those issues that have progressed through a landlord’s complaints process and then brought to the Ombudsman within a reasonable timescale.

7.     On 19 April 2020 the resident reported that Neighbour A’s dog had “smashed” through her garden fence and attacked her dog. Her partner had suffered a small puncture to his forearm trying to separate the dogs. The police attended the incident noting that the resident was distressed and “worked up” but did not report that she had suffered any injuries during the incident. The police completed a crime report.

8.     Reports from the resident, and counter reports from Neighbour A were received by the landlord, indicating that both parties were breaching social distancing rules by allowing visitors to their properties. Because of this, and the incident with the dog, the landlord confirmed on 21 April 2020, that Community Protection Warning’s (CPW) would be issued to both parties.

9.     Around the same time, the resident rang the landlord to state she was going to commit suicide unless something was done about Neighbour A. The landlord advised that it did not have enough evidence to act, however, the police were investigating the dog incident. She was advised to speak to her mental health worker which she confirmed she was not going to do. The landlord contacted 101.

10. Following reports from Neighbour A, relating to concerning posts on social media, the police called the resident. She was unhappy that the neighbour’s dog was allowed in the property after biting her partner. She disclosed that she had injuries which included marks to her hip and back, black bruising and tooth marks on the inside of her arm.

11. The resident called the landlord on 22 April 2020 and was very upset after receiving the CPW as she was the “victim” and had to go to hospital after being attacked by Neighbour A’s dog. She reported that Neighbour A and another resident had threatened to kill her. She stated that she did not want to live there anymore and “might as well end her life.” The landlord telephoned 101.

12. Internal emails in May 2020 confirmed that the police had closed the case as there was “little chance of progression.” It discussed issuing a CPN to the resident but was concerned that “she could cause herself serious injury linked from her perspective to activity on the landlord’s behalf” and it needed to “carefully assess the risks to her with proceeding with enforcement action.” It suggested trying to de-escalate the situation by trying to stop the resident’s social media posts; requesting that Neighbour A repaired the fence; or discussing mediation.

13. It is unclear whether the landlord explored other measures before issuing a CPN to the resident on 6 May 2020.

14. In a call to the landlord on 2 June 2020, the resident advised that she was asking for help but didn’t know where to turn. She had come out of supported housing and had received support for six weeks after commencing her tenancy, but nothing since. She added that she was anxious about Neighbour A’s dog.

15. A case conference between the landlord, Community Safety Unit (CSU) and police was held on 2 June 2020. It confirmed:

a.     The resident was going to be advised to put all her concerns in writing and email to reduce call time with her.

b.     It would ask the resident, and Neighbour A, to enter into a Good Neighbour Agreement (GNA).

c.      Most of the evidence from the resident was “perception based.”

d.     Support had been offered since taking up her tenancy. 

16. The landlord completed a referral to the vulnerability and organised crime panel on 7 June 2020 to “welcome any agency involvement” as it was dealing with a difficult neighbour dispute.

17. On 2 November 2020, the resident phoned the landlord to report threats made by Neighbour A and that “someone would shoot her” if she came out of her flat. The shouting from Neighbour A was witnessed by paramedics that had attended the resident’s address the previous day. The resident was “frightened to go out,” however the police confirmed that it did not have sufficient evidence to arrest Neighbour A.

18. An email sent by adult social services to the landlord on 7 January 2021 confirmed that the resident had disengaged with its Service, and the mental health team. It requested an update from the landlord.

19. On 29 January 2021, the resident reported that she thought Neighbour A had thrown weed killer over her fence as her plants had started dying. She stated that Neighbour A kept going into her garden and plant pots had gone missing. She also reported her dog barking. In its internal communication, the landlord requested that the resident was given diary sheets and provided with details of the noise app.

20. In a letter dated 4 February 2021, the landlord notified the resident of its intended action regarding her behaviour, and that it believed she had breached her CPN. It confirmed that part of her CPN conditions stipulated she was not to call unless it was an emergency relating to the property. It confirmed that it had received calls on 20 and 25 January, 1 and 3 February in relation to noise nuisance, communal space and fighting and “it did not have any independent evidence to support, and it is likely to be malicious and a breach of conditions of tenancy.” It noted that when offers of support had been made, the resident did not engage.

21. A multi-agency meeting was arranged on 9 February 2021. The landlord confirmed in a follow-on email the next day that:

a.     The resident was refusing to engage fully with adult social services and would not allow an assessment to consider if she needed more support.

b.     She was refusing access to the police following welfare checks, threats to harm, or incidents involving neighbours.

c.      She had told agencies that her aim was to remove her neighbours.

d.     All agencies agreed that she spent an “inordinate” amount of time speaking to administration staff rather than officers.

e.     It should write to both parties about entering a Good Neighbour Agreement (GNA) and it should explore a multi-agency agreement in relation to her use of resources.

22. The resident submitted a nuisance diary log from 9 March 2021 to 14 March 2021. She stated that she could “smell drugs” in her house and witnessed drugs going in and out of the property. She added that Neighbour A had called the police and made false reports of “arguing” from her address. She advised her dad and carer were at her address as she was suicidal. She made further reports of dog barking and Neighbour A “screaming” at the dog.

23. The landlord sent a “letter before proceedings” to the resident on 24 March 2021. It confirmed that it had written to the resident in June 2020, and February 2021 requesting that she signed a GNA. As it had not received the GNA, and other neighbours continued to report her for ASB, it was preparing a file for court as it believed she was in breach of the CPN. It confirmed that its barrister was likely to put a case to the County Court for an injunction and/or possession proceedings.

24. The resident telephoned the landlord on 29 March 2021 in an “extremely distressed” state after receiving a letter stating she was going to be taken to court as she had not returned paperwork. During a call on 31 March 2021, the resident stated the letter had detrimentally impacted her mental health and she was in hospital after taking an overdose. The landlord discussed its use of CPW’s and CPN’s and reiterated the importance of collecting evidence. It offered the resident a noise recording device, to enable her to record the dog barking. It later confirmed that the resident was given until 12 April to sign the GNA.

25. The resident requested that a named officer no longer dealt with the case as she reported the officer had “a vendetta” against her. The landlord reallocated the case to another officer.

26. The resident returned the GNA which was date stamped on 9 April 2021. She confirmed on the agreement that she had tried speaking to Neighbour A about the dog barking, but Neighbour A and her partner were kicking her door which she had video evidence of. She added that while signing the form, she had felt suicidal. She confirmed that as her social worker was off sick, “no-one has actually explained much to me, or read through the form on her behalf.”

27. The landlord has noted that in June 2021, it asked the resident to reduce her calls as they were “consistent and persistent” often stating that she would harm herself. The landlord advised calls could sometimes be abusive and would take up an “inordinate amount of staff time” without providing any depth of evidence or information to her calls. This Service has not seen correspondence sent to the resident regarding this.

28. Neighbour A was moved via a management move in June 2021. Between 17 August and 19 August 2021, the resident reported Neighbour B’s dog “yapping” which the officer confirmed it could hear while on the phone. She advised the dog kennel was in the garden and it was yapping at 21.40 and 06.48, but the landlord was “not interested in what she had to say.” She asked for someone to come out and witness it firsthand.

29. On 20 August 2021, the resident reported that the Neighbour B’s dog had got into her garden. She was distressed and angry, given the previous history with Neighbour A’s dog. She also stated the dog (puppy) was left in the garden for hours. This was followed up by an email from the police.

30. The landlord completed an estate visit and contacted a neighbouring property the same day but was unable to hear a dog. A further report was made after the resident stated Neighbour B’s partner was shouting, screaming and aggressive to her after she confronted him about the dog. The resident called the police.

31. A CPW was issued to the resident on 20 August 2021 which stated the landlord was satisfied that the resident’s conduct was having a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those living in the locality. The terms of the CPW, included ensuring that no offensive fumes escaped from her premises; not to cause noise nuisance or ASB; not contacting the landlord unless it was considered an emergency, and ensuring all future correspondence was in writing. It would review the CPW periodically. Staff would terminate calls if they felt intimidated, threatened, or verbally abused.

32. On 25 August 2021, the resident called the landlord in distress after receiving the CPW. She had not been at the address and had been staying with her partner because of Neighbour B’s dog which she reported as having escaped 20 times over the weekend. As a result of threats to harm herself, an ambulance was called to her address. While in attendance, an altercation between the resident and Neighbour B occurred which the paramedics diffused. Further calls from the resident to the landlord on the same day confirmed that she did not have CCTV and did not do drugs as the CPW would suggest. She had found dog poo in her garden and her hot tub had been damaged, as well as being able to smell cannabis from Neighbour B’s property.

33. The landlord confirmed on 26 August 2021 that the police had closed the resident’s complaint from the previous few days. Its internal communication confirmed the resident should be advised to put everything in writing unless an emergency.

34. The resident reported Neighbour B on 2 November 2021 for moving her plant pot and smashing it, putting abusive letters through her door, and it was her belief that Neighbour B was doing it after being advised by the landlord to clear the shared path. She reported that Neighbour B’s partner had threatened to “smash through her door and do her back again and do it for good.” The landlord’s notes confirmed it told her it “needed to end the call on many occasions as she was only to call in on an emergency” which the resident confirmed it was.  

35. A CPN was issued in November 2021. The resident was required to:

a.     Stop intimidating and threatening harm to residents, staff, and members of the public.

b.     Stop calling the landlord to make threats of harm to herself, or anyone else.

c.      All correspondence must be in writing.

36. On 17 November 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident following the resident’s breach of the CPN.

37. On 15 March 2022, the resident stated that her neighbour had been flicking cigarette ash and throwing cigarette butts into her therapy pool and had burnt through the tarpaulin cover. A further report of the same was made on 19 April 2022.

38. The resident contacted this Service in May 2022 to complain about the ASB and dog attack. She was unsure where she was in the landlord’s complaints process. Further contact was made in August 2022, and this Service wrote to the landlord on 5 September 2022 to ask it to consider the complaint under its complaints process.

39. In its stage one response on 12 September 2022, it confirmed that: 

a.     It had contacted the resident on many occasions regarding her reports of ASB which included two recent meetings with her housing officer.

b.     She was advised to complete diary sheets and download the noise app or record incidents. Despite the advice, the resident refused and was advised that without supporting evidence, it could not further her claims and act against the perpetrators.

c.      During August 2021, the resident made continued contact and became abusive and threatened suicide and self-harm.

d.     A CPW was issued because of the resident’s conduct and persistent calls. The calls continued and the resident was issued with a CPN. Following further calls, a warning letter was issued.

e.     It confirmed that it had engaged, offered support and advice to help with the alleged ASB.

f.        The warning letter issued on 17 November 2021 set out possible action that could be taken, should the resident ignore the instructions detailed in the CPN. One of the actions detailed could result in the resident potentially being evicted, but it could not find any further evidence of a threat of eviction. It confirmed that if the CPN was adhered to, no eviction would be considered.

g.     The resident was advised to contact the police regarding the matter with the dog attack. As the resident had threatened legal action, it would not comment further.

h.     It concluded that it had tried to engage and work with her, and support had been offered. However, it had made it clear that without specific evidence, it was unable to investigate her reports further.

40. Following contact with this service on 22 February 2022, this Service instructed the landlord not to continue with the complaint, because of the claims made by the resident if the landlord made contact.

41. In August 2022, the resident confirmed to this Service that she had tried to raise a complaint with her landlord but was threatened with eviction. In September 2022, a further instruction was made by this Service to the landlord, advising not to provide the resident with a final response, due to the detriment this could cause.

42. The resident made further contact with this Service on 6 March 2023. This Service requested that the landlord provided a stage two response to the resident, following her agreement to work with the landlord, through its complaints process. The resident stated she had tried to contact the landlord on three occasions, but her calls were terminated.

43. On 13 March 2023, the landlord wrote to this Service and confirmed that its position remained unchanged from its stage one response, and investigating at stage two would not assist in resolving the situation.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

ASB policy

44. The landlord’s ASB policy states if the victim is considered a vulnerable person, it will be dealt with as high priority and contact will be made with the victim within 48 hours. It confirms that what may be perceived as low-level ASB to some people could be considered as serious to other people. Even incidents that appear minor in isolation can have a devastating cumulative impact when it is part of a persistent pattern of behaviour targeted to the most vulnerable.

45. It states that vulnerable people can be disproportionately susceptible to the effects of ASB and may need additional support. For vulnerable tenants, additional home visits or contacts will be made to provide additional support and reassurance.

Vexatious and persistent complainant policy

46. The aim of the policy is to “deal with all complaints equitably, comprehensively, and in a timely manner.” It confirms that a Service manager will contact the complainant to discuss their behaviour; explain why this behaviour is causing concern; ask them to change this behaviour and explain the actions that it may take if their behaviour does not change.

47. When the decision has been taken to apply this policy, the landlord will contact the complainant in writing to explain why it has taken the decision; what action it is taking; the duration of that action; the review process of this policy; and the right of the complainant to contact the Local Government Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

48. It adds that where a customer is behaving in a difficult, persistent, or unacceptable manner, it must consider whether this may be caused by any personal difficulties or characteristics they have, which may be making services more difficult to access or use.

Scope of investigation

49. This Service acknowledges that the dog incident in April 2020 was distressing for the resident. The resident has said that the landlord was responsible for the dog attack which left her disabled. As this requires a decision to be made on a breach of duty of care meeting a threshold of negligence, and for a decision to be made in relation to liability, these matters are appropriately decided by a court, rather than this Service. This Service has however considered the landlord’s handling of the matter. 

Antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbours.

50. This has been a challenging case for the landlord to manage, which involves a vulnerable resident with significant mental health needs. The Ombudsman also recognises that events coincided with the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, which would have exacerbated the challenges.

51. From the evidence provided, the resident was negatively affected following the incident with Neighbour A’s dog in April 2020. It is important to note that during this time, lockdown restrictions were in place, which may have compounded an already fraught relationship between the parties. The landlord’s approach was to issue CPW’s to both parties. It is unclear from the evidence if the landlord considered informal action, such as offering mediation, or sending warning letters before taking more serious enforcement action.

52. A further report was made in April 2020, that Neighbour A had threatened to kill the resident. In line with its ASB policy, the landlord is expected to assess the risk by completing or updating a risk assessment. It is not evident that this was done, and this was therefore a departure from its policy which confirms it will be “sensitive to vulnerable groups, most at risk of threats of violence, and ongoing assessments will be carried out.”

53. The evidence does not show that an action plan was completed with the resident during the assessment period. The benefit of an action plan is to manage the resident’s expectations, determine the best course of action, and provide a clear understanding from the outset of likely outcomes, as well as how frequently the resident can expect to be contacted. The landlord missed this opportunity to set out its position and provide assurance to the resident that it was taking her reports seriously.

54. The landlord’s internal emails in May 2020, confirm it had reservations as to whether issuing a CPN to the resident was the best course of action, and before doing so, it should “carefully assessed the risks to the resident” and explore other options. Given the residents vulnerabilities, and complex mental health, it was appropriate to be cautious, and take a risk-based approach to the situation. However, despite recommendations, the landlord issued a CPN later that month, without demonstrating it had explored alternative options (for example mediation or warning letters) or how it considered the impact this could have on a vulnerable resident, who had previously expressed suicidal thoughts.

55. It is evident that the landlord experienced difficulties in managing the resident’s communications, and that she made an “inordinate” number of calls to their service. Its ASB policy and unreasonable behaviour policy puts in place measures to be able to manage this type of behaviour, which should not be a punishment, but serve to help manage resident’s expectations, and focus the landlord’s ability to respond.

56. In line with the behaviour policy, the landlord was expected to write to the resident to:

a.     Discuss her behaviour.

b.     Explain why this behaviour is causing concern.

c.      Ask her to change this behaviour.

d.     Explain the actions that it may take if her behaviour did not change.

57. While it is reasonable for a landlord to take action to address unreasonable and abusive behaviour, and protect its staff, it must act fairly and follow its policy when doing so. The landlord has not shown that it did this, and therefore is unable to demonstrate that it dealt with the resident’s behaviour fairly, proportionately, or in an open manner. As such, the resident often felt isolated and “not heard” by the landlord’s actions, compounding her distress. Additionally, it was unreasonable to expect to communicate only in writing, due to her medical condition which could inhibit her ability to communicate in that way. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this, before imposing its communication restrictions.

58. Given the known vulnerability of the resident, the landlord would be expected under both the Equality Act 2010 and the Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard, to demonstrate that it had taken steps to ensure that it understood the needs of resident and responded to those need in the way it provided its services and communicated with her. Under the Equality Act 2010, and as a local authority, the landlord also had the legal duty to make reasonable adjustments, such as how it provided information to the resident. The resident had requested a Single Point of Contact (SPOC) which the landlord did not demonstrate it had considered.

59. In June 2020, the resident explained her struggles living independently, after moving from supported housing. She confirmed having support for six weeks, then “nothing” which affected her ability to manage. The landlord has demonstrated good practice throughout in its multi-agency approach. It appropriately liaised with support agencies, completed referrals, and signposted the resident to ensure all available support was offered to her. While the resident decided not to engage, this Service recognises the efforts made by the landlord in this respect. 

60. Further reports of ASB and noise nuisance were made between November 2020 and January 2021. The resident was provided with diary sheets and information on how to access the noise app. It was necessary to request the resident collected evidence, for the landlord to build a case. However, the landlord was aware of the resident’s medical conditions, which could potentially hinder her ability to complete diary sheets consistently. She had also confirmed she did not have a smart phone and was unable to use the noise app. There is evidence that it offered a noise recording device in March 2021, but it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have offered this at an earlier point in the case. If the resident is still experiencing excessive noise and ASB, then the landlord should take the resident’s medical conditions into consideration and explore other options to best assist the resident in gathering evidence.

61. In February 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident after it believed she had breached her CPN and added that her reports of ASB and noise nuisance were “likely to be malicious.” This is a concerning assumption given that some of the incidents the resident had reported had been witnessed. The landlord should approach each report impartially, being mindful of connotations with the language it uses, which could be interpreted as preconceived and heavy-handed. 

62. In June 2020, the landlord identified the opportunity to try and resolve the disputes through a GNA to prevent the relationship deteriorating. GNA’s are often used to promote positive behaviour and mutual respect between neighbours. It is important to note that it is a voluntary agreement, and while refusing to sign it could indicate a lack of engagement, the resident was not legally obligated to sign it.

63. The landlord issued a letter before proceedings in March 2021 due to ongoing ASB reports and because the resident had not signed the GNA. The resident advised the landlord that following the letter, she took an overdose. The detrimental impact on the resident was significant and led her to believe that she was being evicted. While the landlord explained its use of agreements to the resident, it did not appear to have regard for the detriment it caused to her. 

64. The resident explained to the landlord that no-one had explained or read her the GNA and therefore she signed it without understanding the terms. It is unclear if the landlord provided the resident with an opportunity to obtain an explanation before she felt compelled to sign it for fear of repercussion.

65. The resident continued to report incidents of a similar nature following Neighbour B moving into the flat above in July 2021. Understandably she was concerned and distressed that Neighbour B had a dog, following the previous incident with Neighbour A. While the reports were of a similar nature to those previously investigated, the landlord would be expected to consider the reports, asses the risks and draw up an action plan with the resident. It is not evident that this was done.

66. Appropriate advice was provided to the resident in August 2021 following further reports of threats and dog barking. She was advised to contact the police regarding the threats, and the landlord conducted an estate visit as the resident had requested. However, it was unable to witness dog barking, or corroborate the reports with other neighbours.

67. The evidence shows that on several occasions, due to the contact restrictions the landlord had in place, the landlord had terminated the resident’s calls, even though she was in obvious “distress” or had “tried to end the call on several occasions.” The landlord has finite resources and therefore cannot be expected to respond to every correspondence, as the resident may have expected. However, it has not shown that it considered that during these times, the resident had been “disproportionately susceptible to the effects of ASB” and may have needed additional support.

68. The Ombudsman acknowledges this is a complex case and has caused the resident a significant amount of distress. However, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the matter. Specifically, it failed to follow its ASB policy, carry out a risk assessment, or provide the resident with an action plan. It failed to manage the resident’s expectations throughout the case and contributed to a breakdown in the landlord-resident relationship. It failed to acknowledge that events that appear minor, can have a devastating, cumulative impact on someone with vulnerabilities. 

69. The landlord’s response has fallen short in its management of the resident’s communications and expectations, which led to repeated instances of frustration for the resident. The landlord had many opportunities to identify this and implement its polices, but it did not do so. It is also disappointing that some of the landlord’s internal communication contained inappropriate and unprofessional remarks which lacked empathy for the resident.

70. In its only complaint response, it failed to acknowledge any failings, or consider the distress caused by its handling of the matter. As the resident’s case was not considered through the landlord’s two stage complaints process, it failed to consider at stage one whether it had taken appropriate steps to ensure it complied with its duty to the resident as an extremely vulnerable person, which is a significant failing.

71. In the circumstances, due to the level of failings identified, and the lack of fairness shown to the resident, this Service considers a finding of severe maladministration appropriate.

Complaint handling

72. The landlord issued a stage one response in September 2022 and confirmed that it would not comment further on the dog attack in April 2022, as the resident had referenced seeking legal advice on the matter. There is no evidence that the resident acted upon this, and therefore it was unreasonable for the landlord to refuse to address the complaint or reference any policy that it relied upon to make this decision.

73. Because of its handling of the matter, it failed to consider the adverse effect caused to the resident, because of the incident, or that her later reports of dog nuisance may have been compounded by the earlier incident. In failing to acknowledge the distress this had caused, and respond appropriately to her complaint, caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble in pursing the matter and meant the landlord failed to use its complaints process as an effective tool to resolution.

74. The resident contacted this Service in May 2022 after she had been unable to raise a complaint with her landlord. Following intervention from this Service, the landlord issued a stage one response in September 2022. The landlord did not identify any failings with its handling of the ASB.

75. This Service advised the landlord in February 2022 following further contact with the resident, not to continue with its complaint process, after distressing comments had been made by the resident. The resident later advised this Service in March 2023, that she would work with the landlord, through its complaints process. This Service advised the landlord to provide a stage two response.

76. The landlord advised it would not escalate the complaint as doing so would “not assist in resolving the situation.” The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that a landlord must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure and must have clear and valid reasons for taking that course of action. There is no evidence that in declining to escalate the complaint, the landlord clearly communicated its reasons to the resident in writing, or that it had applied its vexatious and persistent complainant policy correctly in this case. 

77. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that a landlord must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaint’s procedure. The landlord’s decision not to use its internal complaints process meant that the resident was denied fair and timely resolution of her complaint. This caused considerable time, stress and inconvenience and further undermined the landlord-resident relationship.

78. In refusing to escalate the complaint, the landlord was unable to get an accurate picture of subsequent events or understand the full breadth of the complaint, so that it could have been confident that it had addressed all matters raised by the resident at stage one of its process. Instead, it disengaged with the complaints process, and gave no option for the resident but to progress matters through the Ombudsman. The landlord did not utilise its complaints procedure effectively to resolve the dispute but compounded the failings in its handling of the substantive issue.

79. This impacted its ability to put things rights for the resident and lacked appropriate empathy for her situation. The landlord failed to demonstrate the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles to: be fair; put things right; and learn from outcomes. Therefore, this Service considers it appropriate to make a finding of severe maladministration.

80. With the above in mind, the landlord should, in any relevant future complaints, set out its reasons for declining to escalate the complaint and provide the resident with the right to challenge its decision with the Ombudsman.

Determination (decision)

81. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to:

a.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

b.     The landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

82. The landlord failed to follow its ASB policy and its unreasonable behaviour policy, and to demonstrate that it had taken steps to ensure that it fully understood the needs of the resident. The landlord unreasonably refused to progress the matter through its complaints process and failed to provide any acknowledgement, apology and lessons learned in respect of the case.

83. The landlord failed to recognise its failings, acknowledge, or apologise, and therefore could not attempt to put things right. This led to missed opportunities which adversely impacted the resident.

Orders

84. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

a.     Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology should be made by the Chief Executive, and the resident should be given the choice as to whether this is verbal or in writing.

b.     Pay the resident £1,500 compensation, made up of:

1. £1000 for the adverse effect caused by the failings in its handling of the ASB.
2. £500 for the adverse effect caused by the failings in its complaint handling.

c.      Meet with the resident to discuss her needs, and in particular what additional support, consideration or variation in usual Service provision might be appropriate in respect of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

85. Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

a.     Conduct a senior management review of the case to identify learning and improvement.

b.     Set out a plan to conduct staff training in respect to ensuring that unacceptable behaviour is dealt with in accordance with its policy and ensure that warnings or responses are issued appropriately.

c.      The landlord should review the complaint handling failures and deliver training to all relevant staff in:

1. How it will handle complaints; how it will escalate complaints in accordance with its policy and the Complaint Handling Code.
2. Addressing all aspects of a complaint, in line with the Complaint Handling Code.
3. Investigating and responding to complaints concerning vulnerable households.

86. The landlord should contact this Service within eight weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendation

87. The landlord should consider removing the word ‘vexatious’ from its vexatious and persistent complainant policy as the it is quite an inflammatory word and could provoke unacceptable behaviour.