Hornsey Housing Trust Limited (202222077)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222077

Hornsey Housing Trust Limited

26 June 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour (ASB) and its subsequent decision not to investigate.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 2000. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a first floor flat within a split-level house, with another flat beneath. The resident resides in the property with her daughter. During the period of the complaint, the resident’s mother also resided at the property. The resident has advised that she is vulnerable and has mental health needs.
Prior to the period of this complaint, the resident reported multiple instances of ASB perpetrated by her neighbour. The issues included smoke entering the resident’s property through a hole between her property and the neighbour’s property. These matters have previously been investigated by this service and determined by the Ombudsman in April 2023 (case ref. 202013324).
The Ombudsman also notes that the resident has made complaints relating to the landlord issuing Notices of Possession (NOPs). The NOPs made reference to alleged counter allegations of ASB made by the neighbour against the resident. The resident has advised that these allegations were referred to in a note left by the neighbour in their property. The Ombudsman also notes that the resident has challenged the NOPs in court. A related complaint relating to these matters was found to be outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction (case ref. 202305691).
The neighbour moved out of their property in or around May 2023. The resident has advised that a note was left on the communal notice board at that time. The note detailed the neighbour’s negative opinion of the resident.
The resident reported the note to the landlord on 9 May 2023. She advised that she considered the note to be threatening and that she felt harassed. She queried what action the landlord would take. The landlord advised that it would discuss the outstanding issues at a face-to-face meeting; however, there was subsequently a disagreement about the location of the meeting. It is not evident that the issue was ever discussed.
The resident has advised that she reported the note to her local councillor and to the police. However, it is not evident that the landlord was aware that the police had been involved at this time (the resident subsequently noted it in her correspondence in September 2023).
The resident reported her concerns to this service. This service queried with the landlord if it intended to formally respond to the complaint. The landlord clarified its position in a communication on 16 June 2023, which included the following:
1. It was not accepting the resident’s reports as formal complaint.
2. It cited its unreasonable behaviour policy. Specifically, it noted that it considered the resident’s reports to be ‘unreasonable persistence’.
3. It noted that this service had previously investigated her reports about ASB.
4. It also provided information about the resident’s daughter’s eligibility for a property, which is not the subject of this investigation.
5. It confirmed this was its final position on the matter.
Following this response, the resident continued to express her concern about the note.
In or around July 2023, the resident raised a further complaint about a letter sent to her regarding her rent account. This complaint is not the subject of this investigation; however, the landlord addressed the previous ASB complaint in its stage two response dated 1 August 2023. It advised that it considered the issues to be historic and noted that it had previously addressed the ASB reports in line with its ASB policy. It also noted that the neighbour had left their property, and so “therefore see no benefit in revisiting those matters.”
In referring her complaint to this service, the resident noted that the neighbour remains a tenant of the landlord, and therefore the landlord was still able to take action against them.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has raised concerns about how the issues she reported and the landlord’s subsequent service delivery may have impacted her mental health.
The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination that the actions or omissions of a landlord have had a causal impact on a person’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate through an insurance claim or by a court. Should the resident wish to pursue a claim relating to the impact on her health, she has the option to seek legal advice.
The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account any general distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s service delivery may have caused.

Policies and procedures

The landlord operates an unacceptable behaviour policy. The policy notes that “some customers will not or cannot accept that we are unable to assist them further” and that they may “persist in disagreeing with the action or decision taken.” In such circumstances, the landlord will refer them to this service.
The landlord operates a complaints policy. Where the landlord decides not to accept a complaint, it will provide a detailed explanation and note that the issue can be referred to this service.
The landlord operates an ASB policy. ASB is defined as including threats. The policy notes that it will work in partnership with other agencies when dealing with ASB. It will also keep residents informed about its investigation and communicate where it considers that it is not responsible. When dealing with ASB, it may take actions such as issuing warning letters.

ASB

The Ombudsman considers it reasonable for a landlord to decline to reinvestigate a complaint where the circumstances have not changed since its previous response. In particular, the Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to revisit its position on historic complaints.
In this case, it is not disputed that the resident has previously reported ASB to the landlord and that the landlord provided a formal response. The historic ASB has also previously been investigated by this service. However, these responses were given prior to the neighbour’s note being placed in the communal area.
The resident reported her concerns about the neighbour’s note to the landlord in May 2023. She also expressed her concerns about the threatening nature of the note and specifically requested that the landlord provide its position about what it would do. While the landlord may have initially intended to discuss the note in an upcoming meeting, it is not evident that this discussion ever took place. If the discussion did not take place, then the landlord should have provided its position on the resident’s concerns in a formal communication. If the discussion did take place, the landlord should still have followed up its position in writing, given the serious nature of the reports. Neither of these things happened, however.
The Ombudsman understands that at the time of the resident’s reports, there was a high volume of communication between the parties about a multitude of issues. In such circumstances, it is not uncommon for some threads of communication to be missed. However, it is evident that the resident reiterated her concerns about the note on a number of occasions, and so the landlord should reasonably have been aware it remained an issue.
When presented with the formal complaint, it is evident that the landlord considered the complaint to relate to the historic ASB issues experienced by the resident. The landlord, therefore, declined to reinvestigate these issues. Its communication appropriately noted that this was because it had previously investigated the issues. It also noted that, in line with its unreasonable behaviour policy, it would not investigate and referred the resident to this service.
So far as any repeated concerns about historic ASB are concerned, the landlord’s actions were reasonable and in line with its policies. However, the resident’s concerns also included the recent note. The landlord had not provided any formal position on this note, and so its position that the resident’s concerns had previously been investigated was incorrect.
While a landlord may choose not to formally investigate a complaint, it should still complete a reasonable preliminary investigation to determine what the complaint is about. Had it called the resident to clarify what the issues were, it would have understood that the note needed to be investigated. Its failure to identify this demonstrates that its preliminary investigation was insufficient.
Having declined to investigate, the landlord did comment further in a stage two response for an unrelated complaint. In this response, it indicated that, given that the neighbour had now moved away, it did not see a benefit in revisiting the issues. While it may be the case that there were few meaningful steps the landlord could have taken at this time, this was a missed opportunity for it to review its actions at the time of the resident’s initial reports. In the absence of a considered complaint investigation, these comments would have been frustrating for the resident.
The landlord’s ASB policy notes that it can include third parties in an investigation. In the instance of threats, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to refer the resident to the police. While it is evident that the resident went to the police, she has advised that this was only after speaking with her local councillor. It is not evident that the landlord was aware of this, and so its failure to provide such advice was not in line with its policy. Given also that the neighbour remained a tenant of the landlord, it may have also been appropriate to have given them a warning about such behaviour to ensure they did not repeat the behaviour in future. In either case, the landlord should have communicated to the resident about what action it had considered and why it had or had not acted. It should have also identified that this had not occurred at the point of considering the formal complaint.
In summary, the landlord misunderstood the nature of the complaint when it chose not to investigate. It believed the complaint related to historic ASB rather than the more recent note. When it did become aware that the note was the issue, it failed to appropriately investigate and instead chose not to “revisit” those matters (despite having never ‘visited’ them in the first place). While the action that it could have taken may have been limited, it failed to demonstrate to the resident that it had properly investigated her ASB reports. This caused distress for the resident and led to her expending time and trouble chasing her concerns.
In the circumstances, this amounted to maladministration. An order has been made for £200 compensation, being £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the landlord’s failure to properly investigate her complaint and £100 for the resident’s time and trouble in chasing a response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports concerning ASB and its subsequent decision not to investigate.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £200 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to investigate her ASB reports.
This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.