Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Golding Homes Limited (202002016)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002016

Golding Homes Limited

10 August 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

1.     The complaint is about the landlord’s:

  1. response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbours;
  2. complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

2.     The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 28 January 2019. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.

3.     The landlord operates a three stage complaints policy. The policy notes that complaints will be investigated and responded to within eight working days. Any review must be requested within 20 calendar days of the written response.

4.     The landlord operates an ASB policy. The policy defines ASB as conduct that causes harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or nuisance/annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises. The policy notes that clear communication is essential, and that the landlord will contact a complainant every two weeks with updates. The policy also notes the landlord can use a range of preventative measures to address the ASB. It notes that the landlord will also work in partnership with the police and other services to address the ASB.

5.     This service has been provided with the details of the actions taken by the landlord in respect of the resident’s neighbour’s tenancy and have taken these into account in our investigation, however, some of the specifics are not referred to in this report as we are mindful of data protection concerns.

Summary of events

6.     It is evident that on or before 5 September 2019, the resident reported ASB from her neighbour to the landlord. The landlord acknowledged the report on 5 September 2019 and advised it had opened an ASB case with its ‘Neighbourhood Advisor’ and that it would provide a further response within three working days. It also requested the resident fill out incident diary sheets to assist its investigation. The landlord has provided us with copies of its communications to the neighbour, which include a letter dated 9 September 2019 which noted the reports of drug use at their property and reminded the neighbour of their responsibilities under their tenancy agreement. On the same date it also contacted the resident to inform her of the action it had taken and noted it would “keep in contact with you on a fortnightly basis to assess how things are progressing.” Based on the evidence provided to this service, it is not evident that the landlord made any follow up communications to the resident in the weeks following this.

7.     It is evident that throughout this period, a number of the other residents in the neighbourhood also made reports of ASB, drug use, and drug dealing against the resident’s neighbour and that the landlord was in contact with the police over the issue. On 16 December 2019, the landlord issued a formal warning to the neighbour advising that should the ASB not stop, it would pursue enforcement action. It is not evident it kept the resident advised of this action.

8.     It is evident that the landlord and police attended the property on 12 March 2020 to carry out a search, during which the neighbour was verbally abusive and threatening towards the landlord’s neighbourhood advisor and several other residents in the neighbourhood. The landlord subsequently obtained witness statements from those present. On 19 March 2020, the landlord formally advised the neighbour that it would be seeking possession. It also noted the neighbour had the right to appeal this decision.

9.     It is evident that throughout April 2020, another resident in the neighbourhood made numerous further reports of ASB and that the landlord kept in regular contact with them. It also advised it was taking legal action against the neighbour, but that this was a lengthy process, which was also being further delayed due to COVID-19 restrictions. It is not evident that this advice was given to the resident.

10. On 15 May 2020, the landlord advised the neighbour that following their most recent appeal, it had decided to grant a further six-month extension to the neighbour’s tenancy in order to give them a chance to improve their behaviour. It is evident this was communicated to the resident, who subsequently raised a formal complaint on 18 May 2020. She noted the ongoing ASB and drug use at the property and advised her preferred outcome was that the landlord reverse its decision to extend the neighbour’s tenancy. The landlord acknowledged this complaint on 27 May 2020.

11. The landlord provided its stage one response on 29 May 2020. It advised it could not discuss the specific details of the actions it had taken against the neighbour, but that “I believe we have responded appropriately to the complaints we have received based on the evidence available.” It also noted it had liaised with the police regarding the use of drugs at the property. It noted the resident’s desire for an eviction, but advised this was just one option possible, and that it “felt other approaches could be adopted to try and address the issues.” It also advised it would continue to monitor the neighbour’s behaviour. The correspondence did not, however, give information about how the resident could escalate her complaint but it did invite her to contact the author to discuss it further.

12. On the same date, the resident requested the landlord contact her to discuss its response. On 30 May 2020, the resident noted she was yet to receive a call back and that she did not consider the stage one response to have answered her query as to why the neighbour was allowed to remain. On 8 June 2020, the resident again noted she was yet to receive a call back. The landlord advised on the same date it would chase up the call back.

13. On 12 June 2020, the resident reported ongoing drug use at the property. The landlord replied on the same date and requested the resident make a record of any incidents and that it would “speak to everyone later if that’s ok.” It is evident that on that date, the police along with the landlord again searched the neighbour’s property, and that the neighbour made multiple threatening remarks towards the landlord’s neighbourhood advisor and other residents during the search, following which the landlord obtained a number of witness statements from other residents who witnessed the incident.

14. On 23 June 2020, the resident reported further ongoing drug use at the property. The landlord replied on the same date and apologised for not providing any updates to the resident sooner. It advised “you know I am continuing to do what I can for you all and I will continue to do so and keep you as updated as I am able.” The resident subsequently replied that she was still yet to receive her requested call back regarding her complaint and that she had since raised a complaint with this service.

15. On 7 July 2020, the landlord advised the neighbour that it had reconsidered their tenancy and that in light of the ongoing ASB, it had was now pursuing an eviction. It is evident that the neighbour appealed this decision, but on 31 July 2020, the landlord confirmed the appeal had failed and the eviction would be proceeding. It is not evident that any update regarding its actions against the neighbour was provided to the resident.

16. It is not disputed that this service sent requests for updates to the landlord on 28 July 2020 and 20 October 2020. It is not evident that landlord responded to these requests. This service made a further request on 10 November 2020 requesting the landlord provide the resident with a stage two response within five days. On 25 November 2020, this service advised the landlord that prior to the introduction of Complaint Handling Failure Orders (CHFO) in January 2021, it was alerting landlords to instances where such an order would be made, and that there had been a complaint handling failure in this case due to it failing to manage the complaint within a reasonable timescale causing unnecessary delay and inconvenience. On 18 December 2020, the landlord replied to this service and noted it had previously sent a stage one response to the resident “requesting whether [the resident] wishes to escalate her complaint to Stage Two of our complaints process,” along with a copy of its complaints policy.

17. As the complaint was not being progressed through the landlord’s complaints procedure, despite the Ombudsman’s request, this service subsequently accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation and made a further request to the landlord for information on 18 March 2021. This service chased up this request on 9 April 2021 and 28 April 2021, requesting the information be sent by 5 May 2021. It is not evident the landlord responded at any point. On 12 May 2021, this service issued a CHFO due to the landlord’s failure to provide the information requested. The landlord replied on 18 May 2021 and advised it had attempted to send the information on 6 May 2021, and subsequently resent the requested information to this service.

18. The landlord has also informed this service it is continuing to pursue eviction proceedings against the neighbour and that it is also considering a management move for the resident.

Assessment and findings

ASB

19. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are also often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available to a landlord or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not include a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.

20. This service understands the resident’s situation and recognises that the concerns she has reported have affected and caused distress to her. In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. It is also not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to decide on matters such as tenancy breach in the same way as the courts, nor does it decide on what the correct courses of action were in hindsight. However, the Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received within the timeframe of a complaint, and assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking into account all of the circumstances of the case.

21. The landlord’s ASB policy notes that communication is “essential” when responding to reports of ASB. Following the resident’s initial reports in September 2019, the landlord acknowledged the report within a reasonable timeframe and appropriately requested the resident complete an incident diary to assist with its investigation. It also appropriately contacted the neighbour in the first instance to remind them of their responsibilities as tenants. These actions are in line with what the Ombudsman would consider to be best practice in such circumstances. Following this, it also informed the resident of the actions it had taken, again within a reasonable timeframe.

22. The landlord’s ASB policy also notes it will keep residents updated on a fortnightly basis, which the landlord reiterated in its communication on 9 September 2019. Given that other residents had continued to report ASB from the neighbour, and it is evident that the landlord was in contact with the police over the issue, in line with its ASB policy which allows it to involve other agencies to assist in tackling ASB, it would have been helpful had it provided updates to the resident about the actions it was taking so she knew how her reports were being handled. However, it is not evident it did so.

23. Additionally, the landlord’s ASB policy also notes it can use a range of preventative measures to tackle ASB. Given that it had initially written a warning to the neighbour, about the reports of ASB and drug use at the property, it was appropriate that it carried out an inspection of the property along with the police. It was also appropriate that it took witness statements following verbal abuse which occurred during the investigation. Given the severity and ongoing nature of the neighbour’s ASB, it was also appropriate that it decided to seek possession of the neighbour’s tenancy.

24. While the Ombudsman understands that landlords can be limited in the information they disclose regarding their communications with alleged perpetrators of ASB, especially when enforcement action is ongoing, it is evident that the landlord provided updates to other residents in the neighbourhood throughout this period, but not to the resident who made this complaint. Given that the landlord had previously undertaken to provide fortnightly updates to the resident, it is not evident why it did not do so throughout this period to keep her informed it was continuing to take action. This would have left her unsure about what action the landlord was taking and how the ASB case was progressing.

25. Following the resident’s formal complaint about the landlord’s decision to extend the neighbour’s tenancy, it was reasonable for the landlord in its stage one response to advise the resident it was unable to give the specific considerations behind the decision. The landlord has provided this service with records of its appeals panel which indicate that the landlord did consider all the evidence available. As noted in its ASB policy, it has a range of actions it can take to tackle ASB, and so offering an extension to allow the neighbour to improve their behaviour was in line with its policy, which it appropriately articulated in its response. It was also appropriate that it advised the resident it would continue to monitor the situation.

26. Following the resident’s further reports of ASB in June 2020, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the reports and again requested the resident keep an incident diary, in line with best practice. While it advised it would provide further updates “later,” it would have been helpful had it provided a timeframe, which it did not do in this instance. It is also not evident that the landlord provided any further follow up despite the resident’s ongoing requests for a call back regarding her formal complaint, discussed further below.

27. Given the ongoing complaints of ASB, it was appropriate that the landlord made the decision to seek possession of the neighbour’s tenancy. The Ombudsman understands that this process can be lengthy and would have been delayed by the COVID-19 restrictions. As noted above, the Ombudsman also understands that the landlord is limited in the specific information it can divulge to residents, however, it would have been helpful for the resident had it kept her informed that it was continuing to take action, which it did not do in this instance.

28. While the actions taken to address the ASB were reasonable and in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, it is evident that following the resident’s report in September 2019, and despite its commitment to provide fortnightly updates to the resident, the landlord’s level of communication was lacking in the circumstances and caused the resident distress due to not knowing whether her reports were continuing to be investigated, and inconvenience in having to chase up updates. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s lack of communication constitutes service failure and it is appropriate that an amount of compensation be offered. While the overall impact on the resident remains low as the landlord continued to take action throughout the period of the complaint, due to the distress caused by its failure to provide updates, an amount of £100 compensation is appropriate in the circumstances.

 

Complaints handling

29. The landlord’s complaints policy notes that it will respond to complaints within eight working days. Following the resident’s formal complaint on 18 May 2020, the landlord provided its stage one response on 27 May 2020, which was reasonable and within the timeframe of its complaints policy. The landlord’s complaints policy also notes that a request for a review must be made within 20 working days. It is not evident, however, that the landlord’s stage one response indicated how the resident could request a review, nor did it stipulate the timeframe for which she could request a review. While the landlord has advised it accompanied the complaint response with a copy of its complaints policy, the Ombudsman considers it best practice to include this information within the body of a complaint response, which the landlord did not do in this instance. This would have caused the resident confusion about how she could progress her complaint.

30. It is also evident that the landlord invited the resident to discuss her complaint further following the initial response. The resident made multiple requests to arrange such a discussion, which the landlord acknowledged, but it is not evident it made any attempt to contact the resident or arrange a time for the discussion. Following a request from this service that it provide a stage two response, it is evident that the landlord considered that the 20-day period to request a review had elapsed and that its complaints process had been exhausted. Given that it was aware there was a pending further discussion, the Ombudsman considers it was unreasonable for the landlord to prevent the resident from requesting a review, especially considering it did not provide any further warning that such a time period was due to elapse, nor did it express any timeframe in the body of its initial response. This unreasonably prevented the resident from being able to further her complaint.

31. Following the referral of the complaint to the Ombudsman, this service identified, during the evidence gathering stage of its dispute resolution process, that the landlord had not provided specific information that was considered essential to the formal investigation of this case. This service made multiple requests for this information, set out clear deadlines, and the consequences of the landlord failing to produce this information were also clearly defined. Despite this, the landlord did not provide the information within the timeframe and a CHFO was issued.

32. The introduction of CHFOs to the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (January 2021) are an essential aspect of the ongoing development of the Ombudsman’s role within the sector. These new powers are intended to provide the Ombudsman with the scope to take action where, in its opinion, the landlord’s complaints handling has resulted in a detriment to the resident, irrespective of whether the case subsequently progresses to a formal investigation. The information requested on a case amounts to the specific evidence the Ombudsman considers essential in order to complete a balanced and thorough investigation of any particular case. Any gaps in the information provided can therefore lead to the finalised investigation being completed in the absence of key information; as such, taking steps to prevent this are a crucial aspect of the Ombudsman’s service delivery.

33. While the landlord eventually did provide the requested information, the time taken caused an unreasonable delay to the investigation of the resident’s complaint and any subsequent resolution. As with above, while the landlord’s actions towards the resident’s preferred outcome have continued despite its communications and poor complaints handling, the service failures identified above caused the resident distress and inconvenience, in that it failed to communicate further with her following its initial response and also failed to clearly identify how to progress the complaint. It also significantly delayed in providing the information relevant for this service’s investigation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, an amount of compensation is necessary to reflect these service failures and the resulting cumulative impact on the resident. An amount of £100 is reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

34. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its:

  1. response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbours;
  2. complaints handling.

Reasons

ASB

35. While the landlord initially replied to the resident’s reports of ASB within a reasonable timeframe and set out the actions it had taken, it subsequently failed to provide updates to the resident despite its promise to do so and its commitment to do so in its ASB policy. Additionally, while it continued to take appropriate action against the neighbour throughout the period of the complaint, its failure to keep the resident updated, despite multiple further reports from her, would have left her distressed and inconvenienced as she would not have been aware of how her complaint was progressing.

Complaints handling

36. While the landlord initially responded to the resident’s complaint within a reasonable timeframe, its formal response did not identify how the resident could escalate her complaint. Having also invited the resident to discuss her complaint further, it failed to have any further discussion with her, despite multiple requests. Additionally, following the referral of the complaint to this service, the landlord unreasonably delayed providing information necessary for the investigation despite multiple requests, resulting in a CHFO.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

37. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £200, comprising:

  1. £100 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to keep her updated regarding her ASB complaint;
  2. £100 for its ineffective complaints handling.

38. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

39. The landlord should share the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code with staff members who deal with complaints to ensure that they respond to complaints in accordance with best practice.

40. The Ombudsman has seen the landlord’s self-assessment against the Complaint Handling Code. In light of the findings on this case, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord repeat the self-assessment exercise to ensure that its complaint procedure complies with the code in order that it can respond to complaints efficiently and effectively.  

41. The landlord should report back to the Ombudsman on any lessons learned from this case within six months of the date of this decision.

42. The landlord to provide an update to the resident regarding its current position on her ASB case and its actions regarding the neighbour’s tenancy within four weeks of the date of this determination.