Home Group Limited (202008992)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008992

Home Group Limited

8 September 2021

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The amount of service charge the resident had to pay during the covid-19 lockdown when he says services were not provided.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about grounds maintenance and pest control services.
4. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 39(g) and (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the amount of service charge the resident had to pay during the covid-19 lockdown when he says services were not provided.
Paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
As this matter concerns the amount of service charge due, the Ombudsman considers that it would be more effective to seek a remedy through the First Tier Tribunal (property). More information about that can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/first-tier-tribunal-property-chamber.
This report will consider the landlord’s handling of the reports of anti-social behaviour; its response to the resident’s concerns about grounds maintenance and pest control services; and complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has shared ownership of a property and has been a leaseholder of the landlord since 2016. The property is a one–bedroom flat within a block. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities noted for the resident.
The lease says that leaseholders will pay the service charge monthly in twelve equal payments. It explains how the service charge was made up of the estimated expenditure for the year and that, as soon as possible after the accounting year end, it would calculate actual expenditure and notify the leaseholder of the shortfall/excess.
The lease also says that the property should not be used for “any unlawful or immoral purpose”.
The landlord’s tackling ASB policy describes several standards, including:
1. Accessible services and communication.
2. Taking a pro-active approach.
3. Taking swift action.
4. Adopting a supportive approach.
This policy says in relation to drug and substance abuse that it recognises the importance of keeping people safe and adopting a robust approach to managing risk, including taking legal action to enforce conditions of tenure agreements. The landlord’s website says that it is important to keep track of what is happening in relation to ASB, when it is happening and who is causing the problems. It adds that evidence is always key and asks residents to try to keep a diary of the ASB if they can.
The landlord’s neighbourhood and estate management policy sets out its standards which include: a safe and well-maintained neighbourhood; area inspections and grounds maintenance and cleaning arrangements.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond within ten working days at stage one and twenty working days at stage two. The landlord’s website explains that, if residents remain unhappy after stage two, they can approach the Ombudsman or its independent complaints panel. This is made up of its customers who will review each stage of the complaint on an independent basis. Customers on the panel will have had no prior involvement in the complaint.
The landlord’s policy compliance notes on discretionary compensation says that discretionary compensation is usually paid where there has been service failure and are modest monetary awards. It says that discretionary compensation will not be awarded automatically but each case will be considered on its merits.
On 23 March 2020 the UK government announced a national lockdown due to covid-19. This was eased from June 2020 when schools and non-essential retail outlets re-opened. The government introduced new restrictions from 22 September 2020 and a second full national lockdown was announced on 31 October 2020 that came into effect from 5 November 2020. While restrictions were lifted slightly over Christmas, there was a new national lockdown from 6 January 2021.

Summary of events

On 11 November 2019 the resident reported to the landlord that his neighbour (the neighbour) continued to use drugs. He described the email as a “formal complaint” against the neighbour. He gave a detailed account of his exchanges with the neighbour including two incidents from 30 October 2019 (which related to car parking) and one the previous day where the resident said he was verbally assaulted by a guest of the neighbour and he had called the police. He referred to “constant harassment” and the continued use of drugs.
On 27 November 2019 the landlord responded to the resident saying it was currently working closely with the police and its legal team to get advice and support on what legal actions/remedies it could take, should the matter escalate to court. It said that taking drugs in its properties was illegal and a breach of the tenancy or lease but it needed to collect as much evidence as it could to support his complaints.
The landlord asked the resident to start recording any incidences on diary sheets so that it could use that information for any future legal action. The resident responded the same day suggesting the landlord obtain reports of this drug use from the police. The landlord replied saying the police had recently said it had had no recent reports. It added, if the resident was aware of any other residents in the building who were being affected, to ask them to contact it and it would send them diary sheets so that it could start to collate evidence.
On 14 January 2020 the resident told the landlord he had not had a response to his report of an assault and that he wished to make a complaint about that.
In response to an enquiry from the landlord, on 20 January 2020 the resident said the police had attended when he reported the assault and gave verbal cautions but no action was taken.
Also on 20 January 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident with an update. The main points were:
1. It had contacted the neighbour about the allegations of drug use and she had denied that there was any drug use in the property. It added that the PCSO had also visited and confirmed that there was no evidence of drug taking or selling in the property and that the police would take no further action on the grounds of a lack of evidence.
2. It had agreed that the police could gain access into the building to walk about any time they needed to and identify anyone smoking or taking drugs in or around the properties.
3. It had agreed do a “walkabout Wednesday” where it would meet up twice a month to show a presence on the estate.
4. The local district neighbourhood watch was keen to set up a scheme on the estate.
5. It was taking proactive action to reduce the level of crime on the estate and that there was a zero tolerance of drug use in or around the properties. It said that the smell of cannabis alone was not sufficient evidence to take legal action. It said the resident should contact the police if he smelt cannabis or saw drug dealing on the estate.
On 26 May 2020 the resident told the landlord that the grass was overgrown and the rat traps needed some attention. On the same day he said it was unacceptable that the landlord had not responded to his complaint about its response to his report of an assault.
On 9 June 2020 the landlord told the resident that its contractors had not been working during the lockdown. They explained they had been back on site but they were not yet back full-time. It added that the rat traps had last been inspected on 10 March 2020 and it was awaiting a date when the pest contractor would inspect them again.
On 25 June 2020 in response to a request from the landlord, the police community support officer (the PCSO) assured it that they would visit the estate as often as they were able to.
On 1 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. The main points were:
1. The assault he had reported was a criminal matter. He had reported this to the police which was the correct course of action. It apologised that it had not acknowledged this at the time he had first reported it. The landlord assured the resident that this information would form part of any wider anti-social measures it took in relation to the neighbour.
2. It had provided the resident with diary sheets to complete in relation to the neighbour’s drug use to help it gather evidence but it did not appear he had returned them and urged him to do so as that type of evidence would support any further action it could take. It explained that taking tenancy enforcement action in relation to ASB usually relied upon the presentation of undisputable evidence being presented to the courts. The landlord added that the police had not taken any action to date so any evidence he had would support any progressive action it could take.
3. It outlined the action it had taken:
  1. It had requested information from the police in relation to the reports the resident had made to them but this request was declined. The police said it would take direct requests from complainants and related to crime detection and it was open the resident to do so. The landlord thanked him for the police call out reports that he had provided earlier that year.
  2. It had made a more recent request via the PCSO.
  3. It had directly addressed the allegation of drug use with the neighbour and it said it had taken appropriate action.
  4. It had spoken to the neighbour on subsequent occasions in response to concerns raised by the resident; she had denied any use of drugs in her property and was upset by the allegations.
  5. Other investigations have been undertaken with residents within the block where it had asked them to tell it about any drug use they were aware of within the building. Only one other resident said that there was an historic problem but that was no longer an issue.
  6. It had come to its attention as part of these investigations that other customers/visitors to the estate might be smoking within the estate grounds. It said that residents had told it they had noticed the smell of cannabis within the blocks whilst windows and doors were open but the residents concerned believed the smell was coming from outside and not from within the block.
4. The landlord said that it was unable to progress the resident’s complaint at that time. It said it would continue to build a case based on evidence gathered should the drug use continue. It explained that gathering undisputable evidence against one individual when there were multiple residents living in the same vicinity as well as the neighbour’s denial, would require a degree of proof beyond reasonable doubt for it to take tenancy enforcement action. It said as it had no proof at the time, it appeared to be one person’s word against the other’s.
5. It offered mediation to the resident.
The resident contended that the diary sheets were “hearsay” and that he could be “writing random dates and times just to be spiteful”. The landlord responded saying that calls to the police and itself did not surmount to actual evidence either so any additional information it could use strengthened any case before the courts.
On 7 July 2020 the resident told the landlord that he believed if a resident told a drug user to stop, they would “retaliate”. He also said that the police took no action except log the call about drug use and complained that he had not had a response to his complaint of November 2019 (paragraph 11). The resident said he was seeking compensation.
On 13 July 2020 the landlord told the resident that it understood that his letter from November 2019 was about the engagement of its ASB team. It apologised for any confusion and said it would write to him again before the end of that week with a full response in relation to the points he had raised.
On 16 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage one of its formal complaints procedure. The main points were:
1. It had addressed the allegation of drug use with the neighbour and relevant action taken. It added that this matter would remain live and any further reports would be addressed accordingly.
2. It encouraged the resident to use the diary sheets that it had sent to record any further incidents of drug use by the neighbour. Diary sheets had been sent to other customers too as a collective response which would significantly improve any action it would be able to take.
3. It was sorry it had not previously acknowledged this element of the complaint in November 2019. I had raised this issue as an area for colleague improvement. It had discussed the assault with the neighbour who refuted that it took place but agreed there had been an argument between the resident and her visitor. The neighbour said the police were satisfied that there had been no wrongdoing and had closed the matter.
4. The verbal assault was a criminal matter and the landlord said it had addressed this matter with the neighbour and recorded the information the resident had provided. It said this matter would now be closed.
5. It offered compensation of £55 for failing to deal with the issue of the assault in its initial response to the resident.
The landlord explained how the resident could escalate his complaint. He made such a request the same day saying the landlord had not asked for the video evidence he had made clear he had; asked why it had not raised a complaint with the police over it not providing information to it; and that it had not dealt with all his complaint issues.
On 25 August 2020 the landlord issued its stage two response to the resident. It thanked him for speaking to it on 29 July 2020 to go through the issues he wanted addressing. (This Service has not seen a note of that call.) The main points in relation to the complaint brought to the Ombudsman were:
1. It had been working with its contractors to try and establish if additional services would be offered to compensate for the lack of service in lockdown; however, the costs remain the same as grounds maintenance is contracted. Should there be a reduction in costs to customers, this would be reconciled at the end of the year based on costs incurred and it would confirm that in writing to customers at that time.
2. Grounds maintenance visits were scheduled fortnightly, and the most recent visit took place on 19 August 2020 and were next scheduled for 2, 16 and 30 September 2021 going forward. It was monitoring the service standards and visited on 12 August 2020 to inspect and noted that the areas outside the shared ownership blocks needed further attention; it was liaising with its grounds maintenance contractors to ensure the visit on 19 August 2021 went ahead as planned and that the issues highlighted were addressed. It would continue to monitor this going forward.
3. Its pest control contractor was contracted to complete eight visits per year and whilst visits ceased during lockdown, it fully expected the number of visits contracted to be completed within the 12-month period. Therefore, there was no expected refund as there would be no missed visits and it could confirm there had been two visits since restrictions were eased.
4. It confirmed that it was its practice to advise customers to contact the police to report a crime. While the resident had referenced video evidence recorded on his phone, as it did not consent from the neighbour, it was unable to accept this. It said it was unable to disclose what actions it had taken due to data protection; however, the landlord said it had addressed these issues with the neighbour in line with its process and procedure. It was satisfied that appropriate action had been taken. It acknowledged there were failings in relation to its communication for which it offered compensation stage one.
5. Regarding the neighbour’s alleged drug use, the landlord said the resident had advised that the police had never visited to investigate this matter and had told him that he would be arrested if he continued to report drug use incidents.
6. The resident had said he did not agree with the landlord asking him to record incidents of drug use as evidence. It explained that its process focused on the use of log sheets to help it build a case. It confirmed it would continue to visit the block during the evening or at the weekends to monitor the estate at different times when drug use might be more likely. It said that the police had declined to share specific information relating to its action; however, it would continue to work closely with them and try to get agreement to increase patrols via the PCSOs. It added it did not feel raising a complaint with the police around the sharing of a specific piece of information would benefit the relationship or change the outcome.
7. It offered compensation of £95 made up of: the £55 offered at stage one; £15 for a complaint issue that was not brought to the Ombudsman; and £25 for not addressing all issues in the stage one complaint response.
During discussions at the independent complaints panel in October 2020 the landlord responded to several points including:
1. It had been on the site a week ago and the block looked clean.
2. It agreed with the resident with regard to grounds maintenance that that the quality was “lacking” with regards to the contractors. It said that in October 2020 a new contractor started and they appeared to be doing “a good job of tidying up in all the areas”.
3. In terms of pest control, it had fed back to the resident that the contract would be satisfied by the end of the year in terms of the number of visits conducted. It was satisfied that, despite the debris around the rat traps, the contractor had been onsite and checked these boxes.
4. Regarding ASB, it was difficult to establish a breach of tenancy without formal charges being brought by the police.
5. When visiting the estate, the landlord had seen young people in the play area smoking cannabis. It said the police door-knocked but said all the residents they spoke to said they were not aware and had not seen any drug dealing/ drug use going on. However, residents did say that they saw young people dispersing as soon as they saw the police entering the estate.
6. It had taken a well-intentioned approach to address the multiple issues in the resident’s complaint by asking the Housing Manager to respond to the grounds maintenance issues and separated them from the issues elating to ASB. The landlord acknowledged that this was a mistake as it took the complaint out of the complaints process. It added that it became apparent that the resident did not receive a formal response to all the elements of his complaint as its response had become fragmented and some issues slipped through the net of communication at stage one of the complaint procedure.
On 2 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident explaining that he had paid a surplus service charge of £148.93 for the 2019/20 financial years period which would be credited to his service charge account. The surplus mainly arose from utility, cleaning and responsive repair costs.
On 16 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident with the outcome of the independent complaints panel discussions which took place in September/October 2020. It set out the recommendations of the panel:
1. Recording all conversations when there is a dispute.
2. Ensure all aspects of the complaint are dealt with.
3. Share clear information with customers who enquire about the landlord’s national decision regarding contractors.
4. Feedback to customers when estate inspections take place and invite them to join estate walkabouts.
5. Consider sending a regular newsletter to all customers within the block.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
On 4 December 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident about the service charges for the property. It said that it had removed the cleaning charge for the period 1 October to 16 November 20219 when the cleaners could not access the block.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, he said that the landlord had acknowledged its lack of service. He wanted to be reimbursed service charges that he paid during the lockdown when no communal cleaning or grounds maintenance took place. He also raised concerns about the Independent Complaint Panel saying he had not been aware that it was not independent as it was made up of its customers.

Assessment and findings

This report has considered the events from when the resident first raised concerns in November 2019 to the date of the final complaint response in August 2020. The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints made after that date as they have not completed the landlord’s formal complaints procedure. The landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB
It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB; our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against neighbours.
The resident reported drug use by the neighbour in November 2019 and included an account of a verbal assault. The landlord’s response to that report was appropriate. Following these reports, it took the following action:
1. Assured the resident it was working with the police on drug use in the block and the estate (paragraphs 18 and 21.b).
2. Gave the neighbour diary sheets to complete with logs of when he smelt cannabis (paragraph 18).
3. Offered diary sheets to other neighbours who were being affected by drug use in the building (paragraph 18).
4. Contacted the neighbour to discuss the allegations (paragraph 21.a).
5. Increased its and the police presence on the estate (paragraph 21.b, 21.c and 24) .
6. Instigated whether a neighbourhood watch scheme might assure residents (paragraph 21.d).
7. Gave a reasonable explanation of why it could not use the resident’s video evidence (paragraph 31.d).
The landlord’s initial response to the resident of 27 November 2019 made it clear that, without evidence of drug use by the neighbour, it would be unable to take action. The diary sheets provided at that time were part of that evidence‑gathering process. The resident did not consider that the diary sheets would be effective (paragraph 26) and there is no evidence that he completed them. However, evidence gathering is an important part of building a case where there is alleged ASB. In this case, where the police were not satisfied there was sufficient evidence to take action against the neighbour and was seemingly discouraging the resident from making such reports (paragraph 31.e), any additional evidence would have helped the landlord build up a case of illegal activity which it could then have used to consider taking its own tenancy enforcement action.
The landlord acted appropriately by explaining to the resident that allegations of assault were a matter for the police. The landlord apologised that it had not responded swiftly to this matter and assured the resident that this information would form part of any wider anti-social measures it took in relation to the neighbour (paragraph 25.a).
The Ombudsman recognises that the perceived lack of action by the landlord might have caused frustration to the resident. However, in the absence of evidence of drug use by the neighbour it was unable to take action against her. The Ombudsman has not identified service failure by the landlord in its handling of the reports of ASB. The initial report of November 2019 was treated as a complaint and I have looked at complaint handling, below.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about grounds maintenance and pest control services

The resident raised with the landlord concerns about grounds maintenance and cleaning towards the end of the first lockdown (paragraph 22). The landlord took the following action:
1. Explained to the resident that the contractors had not been operating during the lockdown and were not yet back working full-time (paragraph 23).
2. Liaised with the grounds maintenance contractor to raise areas of concern with them that had been brought to its attention (paragraph 31.b) and explained what visits the pest control contractor had undertaken emphasising that they would fulfil its contractual obligations for the year (paragraph 31.c).
The landlord acknowledged in its discussions with the independent complaints panel that the quality of the grounds maintenance had been lacking (paragraph 32.b) but that the new grounds maintenance contractor who had taken over in October 2020 was making progress.
In taking the action outlined above, the landlord acted appropriately in dealing with concerns raised by the resident about pest control and grounds maintenance.
The resident has an obligation under the lease to pay the service charges (paragraph 9). The landlord was clear that any reduction in the cost of these services due to lockdown would be passed on to residents and reflected in the end of year reconciliation for service charges (paragraph 31.a). In December 2020 the service charge was reduced to reflect a period when cleaners could not access the block (paragraph 36).

Complaint handling

The landlord has acknowledged that its complaint handling was not appropriate. It noted it had omitted to deal with the issue of the verbal assault when the resident first raised this matter (paragraph 29.c); that it did not address all the issues at stage one (paragraph 32.f).
In relation to the issues brought to the Ombudsman, the landlord offered compensation of £80 (paragraph 31.g) made up of:
1. £55 at stage one for failing to deal with the issue of the verbal assault.
2. £25 for not addressing all the issues at stage one.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord’s complaint handling failures evidently caused the resident frustration and inconvenience. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord used its discretion to award financial compensation. The Ombudsman considers that the sum offered was proportionate to the failures identified and it is also within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of service failure. This includes cases where there has been poor complaint handling.
The resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord did not make him aware that the independent complaints panel was not independent as it was made up of customers of the landlord. This information is available on the landlord’s website. While the resident has concerns about its independence, the Ombudsman saw no evidence of impartiality or bias when reviewing the panel’s papers and their discussions with the landlord’s staff.
While there was evidence of poor complaint handling, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has remedied the impact of this on the resident by way of the offer of the compensation to him. While it was not clear from the evidence provided whether or not the landlord had acted on the recommendations of the independent complaints panel, I have made a recommendation that it does so.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint with respect to complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. Its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Its response to the resident’s concerns about grounds maintenance and pest control services.

Reasons

The landlord has taken action to remedy the impact on the resident that was caused by its complaint handling failures.
The landlord acted appropriately in response to the reports of ASB by taking various action in response to liaising with the police, taking local action in the estate and by trying to gather evidence to support potential tenancy enforcement action.
The landlord acted appropriately by liaising with the contractors to ensure that they were aware of areas that required additional attention. It explained that any difference in the service charge it paid as a result of lockdown, would be reflected in its service charge reconciliation at year end. It also removed service charges relating to cleaning when the contractor could not gain access.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord should take the following action:
1. Pay the resident the £80 compensation it previously offered in relation to its complaint handling failures (if it has not done so already).
2. Implement the recommendations of the independent complaints panel.