Hyde Housing Association Limited (202212600)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212600

Hyde Housing Association Limited

28 March 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 handling of:
1. Reports of anti-social behaviour.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant at the property from 7 June 2010 to 2 May 2021. The property is a two-bedroom house. The resident lived in the property with her 2 children, now aged 9 and 13.
The resident made a previous complaint to her landlord about its handling of an antisocial behaviour case involving her neighbour. She subsequently reported that most of the issues she had complained about were resolved following intervention by the landlord and the case was closed. However, one element of the antisocial behaviour escalated again. This report covers the subsequent complaint.
The resident completed a log regarding her neighbour repeatedly spitting on his doorstep. Her neighbour’s doorstep was adjacent to her doorstep, separated by a low-level picket fence. She logged that this behaviour happened on 26 and 30 August 2020, 2, 9, 11, 21, 22, and 23 September 2020 and on one occasion between 14 and 20 December 2020.
On 23 December 2020 the resident tried to call the landlord regarding privacy panels that the landlord had offered to fit during the previous complaint. The resident also sent the landlord a copy of the diary log of antisocial behaviour and a video from 19 November 2020. She told the landlord that the neighbour spat randomly and every day without fail.
On 25 December 2020 the resident logged that her neighbour spat “loud and clear”.
On 7 January 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident. The resident asked the landlord not to contact the neighbour about the spitting incidents. The landlord told the resident that if it was unable to challenge the neighbour it would be difficult for it to proceed with the case.
On 9 January 2021 the resident advised the landlord that her neighbour was “having a spitting session again”. She videoed this and sent the video to the landlord.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 January 2021. She asked it to, “please take this letter as a complaint”. One part of the complaint concerned antisocial behaviour. The resident explained that she had complained the previous year about this and the landlord had “proceeded to put it right”. She said that although issues had been resolved a part of the antisocial behaviour was continuing. She said that she had tried to contact the resolution officer that had assisted her with the previous complaint to discuss the erection of privacy panels between the front doors. She had left messages and sent emails. She requested an urgent callback.
The landlord emailed the resident back on 11 January 2021. It explained that the resolution officer the resident had been dealing with would soon be leaving the complaints team so the “query” was passed to the antisocial behaviour team instead.
On 12 January 2021 the resident emailed the landlord asking the landlord to investigate the complaint to be investigated because “her letter was not a general query”. The landlord emailed her back the same day to advise her that it had logged the issue as a complaint and gave her the complaint reference number.
The landlord called the resident on 15 January 2021. It told her that if it fitted a privacy panel the antisocial behaviour case might be closed.
The resident emailed the landlord on 18 January 2021. She told the landlord that she would like to progress the antisocial behaviour case and did not want the privacy panel fitted. She asked the landlord to let her know what the next steps would be.
The landlord reviewed the antisocial behaviour case on 19 January 2021. Notes from this confirmed that it had told the resident that if the landlord funded a privacy panel the antisocial behaviour case would be closed. Notes also said that it had advised the resident that it would need to speak to the neighbour about any new incidents. This was to warn him that if the behaviour continued the landlord would act on the notice of seeking possession served in August 2020. The notes said that the landlord had advised the resident that the “best case scenario” outcome from a court case would be a suspended possession order.
On 21 January 2021 the resident logged that her neighbour had a “spitting session after midday”. She telephoned the landlord who explained that if the antisocial behaviour case was progressed it would contact the neighbour again and the court process would start.
On 24 January 2021 the resident logged that the neighbour had spat twice between 1:15pm and 2pm.
The landlord called the neighbour on 26 January 2021. It told him that it was still receiving reports that he was spitting at the front of the property and suggested that he go to the rear of the property instead. It said that if the neighbour needed to be at the front of the property for any reason and needed to spit, he should do so by the kerb. However, it would be better if he did not spit at all especially during the pandemic, as it alarmed others. The neighbour asked the landlord to pass his apologies to the resident.
A further case review was held by the landlord on 9 February 2021. Notes from this said that there had been no more reports of the neighbour spitting since the landlord had spoken to him.
The landlord emailed the neighbour following a review of the antisocial behaviour case on 9 February 2021. It said that it had noted the following points:
1. The neighbour had been seen spitting while standing at his front door.
2. The neighbour was advised what affect this has on the resident, especially considering the current pandemic.
3. Case reviews would continue.
The resident and landlord spoke on the telephone on 15 February 2021. The resident told the landlord that the neighbour was now spitting in the drain or across the road in the bushes. The landlord said that it would be difficult to proceed with court action if the neighbour was no longer spitting by the front door.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 February 2021. She asked why the court case was not being progressed. The resident said that although the neighbour had stopped spitting on the doorstep temporarily, he had breached his tenancy and the conditions in notice of seeking possession previously served. She said that the last time the neighbour had spat was on 24 January 2021 (twice) and asked if the landlord had spoken to him before or after that.
The landlord responded on 2 March 2021. It said that it had discussed the case with its legal team who advised that the next step would be to apply for an injunction. This would be reliant on the resident’s evidence. It asked the resident to advise it if she would like to apply for an injunction. It said that a case review had been carried out that day and in summary:
1. The resident had advised the landlord in a phone call on 15 February 2021 that the neighbour had now moved to the kerb or across the road to spit.
2. The last report of the neighbour spitting was twice on 24 January 2021.
3. A further case review was due on 23 March 2021.
The resident logged that the neighbour had spat at the front door of his property at 11:20am on 23 March 2021. She contacted the landlord who told her it would check with its legal team. The resident emailed the landlord on the same day to advise it that she had had contact with the police, Public Health England, and an antisocial behaviour manager at the local council in the past year about the neighbour spitting on the doorstep.
Notes from the landlord’s case review on 23 March 2021 said that the resident had advised it that the neighbour was spitting in front of the property again. It had checked with its legal team and would start the legal paperwork to progress the case.
Notes from the landlord’s case review dated 20 April 2021 said that it had completed the legal action forms and it was awaiting an update from its income team. A further case review was due in 4 weeks.
On 13 May 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to advise it that she had completed a mutual exchange and was therefore no longer living in the property. However, she asked for an update on the court case. The landlord responded to say that it would check to see if it could proceed with the case now that the resident had moved.
The landlord held a case review on 18 May 2021. Notes from this said that it was checking whether a court case was feasible now that the resident was no longer being affected by the neighbour’s behaviour. The resident was to be updated.
An internal landlord email dated 19 May 2021 stated that it had visited the new resident of the property 6 weeks after they had moved in. The new resident did not report any issues with the neighbour. There had been 3 incidents reported since January 2021. It said that it had told the resident that it was reviewing the case and would provide an update.
The landlord held a final case review on 9 June 2021. Notes from this said that the new resident of the property had not reported any issues with the neighbour. As no-one was being affected anymore the landlord would not be considered reasonable or proportionate in taking court action so the antisocial behaviour case was closed.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 June 2021 to ask if the landlord had decided about taking the case to court. The landlord responded and told the resident the outcome of the case review.
The resident complained on 26 July 2021. She said that she had suffered ongoing antisocial behaviour for over 2 years which was not resolved by the landlord. She said that the landlord had been negligent and slow to intervene. She said that throughout the COVID-19 epidemic her neighbour had been spitting 20-30 times a day, centimetres from her doorstep and the landlord had not taken it seriously. She requested compensation for damages due to distress to her family, moving costs, reimbursement for a GP letter and redirection of mail. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day but said that there was currently a 6–8-week delay with responses.
The landlord called the resident about the complaint on 22 November 2022. It advised the resident that it could provide compensation for delay and inconvenience but could not process a claim as this would “go through the claims team”.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 7 December 2021. The landlord found that it had not failed in the service provided and did not uphold the complaint. However, there had been a delay in responding to the complaint so it offered £175 in recognition of the time and trouble and delay and inconvenience caused. This was reduced to £150 later in the same complaint response. It said that the complaint policy did not cover the claims she had requested.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 December 2021. She said that the case had not been investigated properly. The resident and her family had endured issues over a 2 year period and there was a GP letter that had not been acknowledged.
The landlord emailed the resident on 15 December 2021 to confirm that the complaint had been escalated to stage 2 of the complaints process.
The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 10 January 2022. It said that it had found that it had not closed the final antisocial behaviour case properly and apologised for the confusion this caused. It said that after reports in December 2020 the case was investigated and regular case reviews undertaken. It had been pursuing further options for legal action until the resident moved. Following a review the landlord decided that court action was not proportionate or reasonable. The landlord increased the offer of compensation to £275 comprising of the original £175 offered plus £100 for the delay in informing the resident that the antisocial behaviour case was being closed.
The resident received a further offer of compensation dated 24 November 2023 after the landlord carried out a further review of the complaint. This offer was for £1750 but the offer did not relate to the residents complaint and was presumably intended for another recipient.
The landlord provided this Service with another letter dated 24 November 2023 addressed to the resident which offered £950 following a further review of the complaint. This letter related to this complaint; however, the resident has informed this Service that she did not receive this letter and had no knowledge of the offer.

The Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour.

It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of antisocial behaviour. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for antisocial behaviour; our investigation considers 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 landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy statement says “we will take a customer focussed approach to tackling antisocial behaviour, working with the complainant and the alleged perpetrator, aiming to reach agreed actions, timescales and ultimately closure. Except in very serious cases, our initial intervention will aim to stop the problem behaviour. We will consider legal action where there is sufficient evidence. Eviction will only be considered where other interventions have failed and will be used as a last resort.”.
There is evidence that the resident sent the landlord a log of incidents on 23 December 2020. The landlord responded to this on 7 January 2021, which was reasonable when the Christmas shutdown is taken into consideration. At this point the resident told the landlord that she did not want it to speak to the neighbour, so the landlord was unable to take further action at this point.
Following this the landlord held regular case reviews and was in contact with the resident on a regular basis. It advised her of the likely outcome if the case was taken to court. It contacted the neighbour, once the resident had given permission and the neighbour modified his behaviour following the intervention.
When the resident advised the landlord that she had moved it carried out further case reviews and asked the new resident of the property if they were experiencing any issues with the neighbour. There is evidence that, in accordance with its policy, it considered whether proceeding to take the case to court was proportionate based on the evidence, which was the appropriate action to take.
On 13 May 2021, the landlord promised the resident that it would update her regarding whether the ASB case would be taken to court. Despite a case review taking place on 18 May 2021 after which the resident was due to be updated, this Service has seen no evidence that this happened. The resident had to contact the landlord again on 9 June 2021, which cost her time and trouble.
The landlord told the resident that if it fitted a privacy panel the antisocial behaviour case would be closed. The privacy panel may have alleviated the distress that the resident was suffering due to her neighbour spitting in close proximity to her front door. However, she did not want the case to be closed so she declined the offer. The landlord should have offered this intervention to see if it resolved the issue before closing the case. This was a missed opportunity to see if this would help resolve the problem and was a failing on the landlord’s part.
Due to the above factors, there has been service failure in the landlords handling of the residents reports of antisocial behaviour.

The landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy says, “there are two stages to our complaint process. In addition, there is an opportunity for the customer to choose the option of an informal complaint response rather than a formal complaint investigation. Informal complaint: If a customer simply wants us to put things right with a minimum of fuss when it is clear what has gone wrong, they may choose the informal complaint route”.
There is evidence that the resident complained to the landlord on 10 January 2021. The landlord responded informally the next day; however, the resident clearly told it that she was still dissatisfied and said that her letter was a complaint “not a general query”. The landlord then logged a complaint but this Service has seen no evidence that it responded to it.
This was a complaint handling failure which caused the resident distress, inconvenience and time and trouble. Had the issue been treated as a complaint at an earlier stage the resident would not have had to raise another complaint.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling code in place at the time said that “landlords must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason”.
The landlord took 96 working days to respond the resident’s stage 1 complaint. This severe delay meant that it denied the resident a timely resolution and was a significant complaint handling failure. This would have caused the resident to lose further faith in the landlord and cost her time and trouble chasing a response.
The stage 1 complaint response said that the complaints policy did not cover the claims for negligence, damages, or removals that the resident requested but it did not signpost her to claim for these under its insurance. It also contained an error because it offered £175 at the beginning of the letter, which it later reduced to £150. This lack of attention to detail cost the resident further time and trouble because she had to escalate the complaint. It also denied her a possible outcome via the landlord’s insurance company.
The landlord revised its offer of compensation on 24 November 2023 and increased the offer of £275 from the stage 2 complaint to £950. The resident did not receive this letter and in any case, the offer was made significantly after the complaints process was exhausted. Additionally, it was offered after this Service was asked to investigate the complaint. This should have been an outcome and offer of redress identified at the time of the complaint process.
The landlord did send another letter of revised compensation to the resident but this held information about a case involving another resident. The letter was also incomplete with many areas of the letter saying “insert text here” or similar. This, along with the fact that the resident did not receive the letter that was meant for her, was a record keeping failure by the landlord that caused the resident to lose further faith in it and it contributed to a further break down of the landlord/tenant relationship.
Due to the above failings, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must:
Pay the resident directly £950 compensation, any compensation already paid should be deducted from this amount. Compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £350 for complaint handling failures
2. £300 for distress and inconvenience.
3. £300 for time and trouble.
Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings in this case. This must be completed by a senior member of staff.
Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be provided to the Ombudsman within the required timeframe.
The landlord has been ordered to carry out a review, within 12 weeks, of its practice in relation to its approach to complaints and redress. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the previous cases and so the learning from this complaint should be incorporated into the wider review, ordered as part of case 202119268. In addition to this, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord as part of the wider order.