Incommunities Limited (202216799)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216799

Incommunities Limited

16 January 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 the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping when considering this complaint.

Background

The resident had a secure tenancy with her local authority which commenced in 2019. The tenancy has since passed to a housing association. The landlord has not provided evidence that any vulnerabilities are recorded on the resident’s tenancy file.
There is a complex and long running dispute between the resident and her neighbour with a history of allegations and counter-allegations of antisocial behaviour (ASB). This has led to the landlord recommending that it seeks an injunction or a possession order against the resident due to allegations of ASB, the involvement of the police and the criminal justice system, and the resident ultimately being sentenced to a 2 year conditional discharge, court costs, and a victim surcharge. It is important to note this investigation is not assessing the landlord’s handling of reports of alleged ASB against the resident, as this is not the complaint which has been brought to the Ombudsman, and that it instead focusses on the handling of reports of alleged ASB made by the resident herself.
On 17 August 2022, the resident told the landlord there had been an incident where a visitor to her neighbour’s property had tried to force entry to the resident’s property. The police were contacted but did not attend. The resident offered to share video evidence of the incident with the landlord and asked the landlord to warn the neighbour to stay away from her. The landlord interviewed the resident about this incident at an unknown date, with the resident confirming that the details of the interview were correct on 18 November 2022. The record of the interview stated that the resident told the landlord that the neighbour’s friend confronted the resident on her doorstep about allegations of harassment. The resident stated that the neighbour’s friend knocked loudly on the front door. When the resident answered, the friend became verbally abusive. The resident tried to close the front door but was prevented from doing so by the friend. She eventually managed to close the door on them but the friend remained on the doorstep, shouting and kicking the door. After the friend left, the resident noticed that the front door had been damaged. It also stated another incident took place on 25 August 2022 where the neighbour’s friend came to the resident’s front door again, shouting at the resident. The resident stated she felt intimidated and did not open the door, calling her brother to come round for support. When the resident’s brother arrived, the neighbour’s friend was abusive to him too. The resident admitted she left her property at this point and there was an altercation between her and her neighbour’s friend.
On 23 August 2022, the resident told the landlord that the neighbour had installed CCTV which appeared to cover the resident’s property. The landlord told the resident that they would contact the neighbour about this issue.
On 26 August 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her concerns. The resident told the landlord that she felt uncomfortable with the CCTV installed by her neighbour as she believed one of the cameras was pointing into her son’s bedroom. The landlord told the resident that the current ASB officer handling the case worked part time so was not able to respond immediately but that they would get in touch with the neighbour to discuss this issue.
On 1 September 2022, the landlord acknowledged a complaint made by the resident about the landlord’s handling of alleged ASB by the neighbour and told her that it would provide a response within 10 working days.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 13 September 2022. It apologised for the lack of response to allegations of ASB and assigned a new officer to handle the issue.
On 30 September 2022, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She explained that the officer allocated to her case had not been responsive or been in contact about the alleged ASB for nearly 3 weeks.
On 3 October 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for escalation of her complaint and told her that its final response would be provided within 20 working days.
On 4 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and explained that she felt frustrated as the ASB case had been passed through 4 different officers with no resolution. She asked that this issue was added to her complaint as well as a request to give the neighbour a ‘severe warning’. The landlord responded on the same day and told the resident that this would be passed to the officer handling her complaint.
On the same day, the landlord made internal enquiries as to whether contact had been made with the resident since a home visit on 15 September 2022. A number of ‘backdated’ notes were then added on 4 October 2022 to the resident’s records which detailed a home visit on 15 September 2022. These notes state that the resident had told the officer that her neighbour’s visitor had been threatening and abusive, that the neighbour has complained that the resident had made false complaints against her to the police and social services, that there had been a recent incident where the visitor had been threatening at the resident’s front door, and that the neighbour had installed CCTV without permission. The notes also state that the landlord visited the neighbour on 15 September 2022 and discussed the issues raised.
On 13 October 2022, the landlord made further internal enquiries about whether the resident had been kept up to date about the ASB case. A new officer was then allocated to the case and the landlord committed to fortnightly contact with the resident. The landlord’s internal emails raised concerns that there were no notes on the resident’s records about contact and it requested that records were updated and the fortnightly calls to the resident recorded for audit purposes.
On 21 October 2022, the landlord made a further entry on the resident’s record about the visit on 15 September 2022 regarding discussions with the resident’s neighbour. This record essentially rephrases notes made on 4 October 2022.
On 25 October 2022, the resident asked the landlord about the progress of her stage 2 complaint. It responded on the same day, explaining that it had 20 working days to provide a response and that the ‘last day’ to respond would be 31 October 2022. It also asked the resident to confirm whether any officers had been in touch recently about the ASB case.
On the same day, the landlord’s complaints team asked internally if further contact had been made with the resident. This Service has seen evidence that a request was made for urgent contact with the resident as it believed no contact had been made since the visit on 15 September 2022, as well as a further request to make sure that all contact records and notes were kept updated.
On 26 October 2022, another backdated note stated that the landlord called the resident on 6 October 2022 and left a message to call back.
On the same day, the landlord contacted the resident. The resident explained that things had calmed down over the last few weeks but requested that the ASB case stayed open, explaining that she had difficult personal circumstances and was finding this situation distressing. The landlord informed the resident it would visit the neighbour next week and agreed to further fortnightly calls about the case. The resident updated the landlord about the outcome of a court hearing regarding one of the ASB incidents, where the judge had told both resident and neighbour that they were equally responsible and needed to stay away from each other.
The landlord’s stage 2 response to the complaint was provided on 26 October 2022. It explained that a new officer had taken over the case on 26 October 2022 and had contacted the resident about this. It agreed that a high turnover of staff had affected handling of the case, as there had not been clear handovers to provide a consistent approach to the issues. It also acknowledged it had breached its own ASB procedure timescales, although it did not explain what timescale had been breached, and that communication between the landlord and resident had been poor. It offered £50 compensation for its failings.
This Service has seen evidence that learnings from the stage 2 response were circulated internally by the landlord on 26 October 2022 and that staff were reminded of the importance of communication within agreed timescales as well as the importance of good record keeping.
On 27 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to explain that the allocated officer had called the previous day but they had asked if she would like to close her ASB case. She explained she was unhappy with this and that she believed the officer’s manager had now taken over conduct of the case. On 28 October 2022, the landlord confirmed to the resident that the ASB case was still open and that a stage 2 response to her complaint had been sent via post.
On 31 October 2022, the resident reported another incident of abuse and intimidating behaviour from her neighbour’s visitor. The landlord offered mediation between the resident and the neighbour at this point, with the resident requesting time to consider the offer. The resident contacted the landlord again later that day to discuss the incident, complaining that she felt she had been treated differently by the landlord due to her ethnicity and as she has children. The landlord denied this and asked the resident to complete diary sheets of ASB incidents.
A tenancy enforcement referral was made by the landlord internally on 31 October 2022. This requested that the landlord seek either an injunction or a possession order against the resident. The form stated that the resident had been verbally abusing and harassing the neighbour for the last 19 months, with the latest incident on 28 August 2022 where the resident was alleged to have been verbally abusive to the neighbour and her daughter. This led to the neighbour’s friend coming round and confronting the resident, and ultimately led to the resident punching the neighbour. Police attended and the resident was sentenced to a 2 year conditional discharge, court costs, and a victim surcharge. The officer who completed the form alleged in one entry that the resident shouted abuse at the neighbour on a daily basis. No disabilities or vulnerabilities were recorded on the form.
On 1 November 2022, the landlord attempted to contact the resident by phone and by visiting at home with no response.
On 10 November 2022, the resident gave the landlord details for her mental health advocate and asked that the advocate was kept informed about developments in her case. The landlord responded the following day, stating that the advocate’s details had been passed onto relevant officers and forwarded copies of its stage 1 and stage 2 response letters to the advocate.
On 11 November 2022, the ASB case was reassigned to another officer.
On 2 December 2022, the landlord contacted the resident about the ASB case. The resident told the landlord that there had been no further incidents and agreed for the case to be closed.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour

Paragraph 7.5 of the landlord’s ASB and Hate Incident Policy sets out timescales for response to reports of ASB:
1. 24 hours to be acknowledged by the landlord following a report.
2. 5 working days to contact a complainant to take details of the issue.
3. 15 working days to investigate into the issue, if an investigation is appropriate.
4. 5 working days to take action on an issue following an investigation.
5. In more serious cases, involving threats of violence, specialist tenancy enforcement officers respond to the complainant within 24 hours of the report.
6. ASB reports are to be reviewed every 15 working days, with complainants contacted during this period.
The background to this complaint is one of allegations of ASB by the resident and counter-allegations by her neighbour. The Ombudsman acknowledges that ASB cases where there are allegation and counter-allegations to the extent present in this case pose a significant challenge to any landlord, and that these cases can be amongst the most difficult and intractable for a landlord to resolve. This challenge is not the fault of any party, but it is important that the Ombudsman’s assessment of the landlord’s action recognises this fact.
This Service has not been provided with evidence that the resident’s reports of ASB were acknowledged within 24 hours, or that reports where violence or a threat of violence were mentioned were passed to specialist tenancy enforcement officers. Although there is evidence that the landlord took details of the incident reported on 17 August 2022 and carried out an investigation, it is not clear when the investigation took place due to issues with record keeping and a lack of contemporaneous notes. Few notes have been provided which give details of the investigation. Notes from a home visit were entered onto the resident’s tenancy file on 18 November 2022, after email confirmation from the resident that the details of the interview were correct, which leads this Service to assume that the visit took place a significant amount of time after the initial report on 17 August and is a separate visit from the one which took place on 15 September. No evidence has been provided that an action plan was drafted after the visit or at any time during the investigation, or that the ASB reports were reviewed. The landlord’s failure to follow its own policy led to ineffective management of the reported ASB and left the resident and the neighbour unaware of what steps, if any, the landlord was going to take to manage the situation.
Although incidents were reported to the police, eventually leading to a court hearing, the landlord has not provided evidence that it contacted the police, the courts, or other relevant agencies regarding these incidents despite being aware of their involvement. Establishing effective communication with other agencies at an early stage would have assisted the landlord in assessing the severity of the ASB and helped to inform the landlord on what options it had to manage the situation, including whether it was appropriate to take legal action against the neighbour and/or the resident.
The landlord responded promptly and effectively to reports about issues with CCTV from the resident and within the timescales set in its policy, leading to a quick resolution. However, this led to the issue effectively being prioritised over the more serious reports of ASB by the resident and counter-reports by the neighbour – this is of particular concern as some of the reports contain allegations of ASB targeting children. Failing to prioritise more serious or urgent issues and addressing less serious issues first has led to the landlord taking longer than necessary to take reasonable steps to prevent the situation from escalating.
This Service has seen evidence that the officer handling the resident’s case changed several times after the initial report on 17 August 2022. The timing of the change of officers coincides with dates where the resident raised complaints about the handling of her case or contacted the landlord for updates, which could understandably have given the resident the impression that the change of officers was a reactive tactic to handle the resident’s complaints. There is no evidence that case handovers took place between the officers or that the landlord took steps to ensure that a consistent approach was taken with the resident. Although the Ombudsman appreciates there are circumstances where it is appropriate or unavoidable to change the officer handling a case, any change of officer during a ’live’ ASB case must be accompanied by a comprehensive case handover which identifies issues which are still being addressed and sets out a clear plan of action. Failing to appropriately handle multiple changes of officer demonstrates that the landlord had poor handling of the ASB case overall and meant there was a missed opportunity to address issues raised by the resident at an early stage.
The actions taken by the landlord in its efforts to manage reported ASB were not delivered in a timely manner, leading to delays in managing the situation. It is positive that the landlord offered mediation between the resident and the neighbour on 31 October 2022, but this did not occur until 75 days after the resident’s initial ASB report. Asking the resident to complete diary sheets at this point was also ineffective as the landlord would have been able to access evidence about the ASB if it had established an effective working relationship with the police and other agencies at an early stage. Taking prompt action may have prevented further ASB incidents in this case and made it clear to the resident and her neighbour that their behaviour was not going to be tolerated.
This Service has seen evidence that the landlord took action about the alleged ASB in late November. Details of these actions cannot be shared in this report due to data protection considerations, but this Service is satisfied that the steps taken were reasonable and proportionate.
Due to the failure of the landlord to act in line with its own policy, failing to establish effective contact with the police and other agencies, failing to prioritise action on reports of more serious ASB, and failing to act promptly in response to ASB reports, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports and has issued a wider order under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme to review its policies and practices in connection to the issues highlighted in this report.

Record keeping

The records on ASB and tenancy management provided to this Service by the landlord were limited with a lack of contemporaneous notes and several ‘backdated’ entries placed on record many weeks after events. Gaps and omissions in the evidence provided have meant that the landlord has not been able to clearly demonstrate what steps it has taken to resolve the resident’s reports, as well as its overall management of the issues raised by the resident.
This investigation has therefore highlighted issues with the landlord’s record keeping, the impact on its ability to ensure it took effective action on time, and the missed opportunity to fully review the history of the case when investigating the resident’s complaint. It is of note that the landlord’s record keeping regarding contact with the resident was so poor, that the landlord’s complaint handling team had to resort to asking the resident for confirmation of dates when it had been in touch rather than being able to rely on its own records. This has restricted the landlord’s ability to adequately manage this case, put things right, and to learn from its mistakes in this case and would have impacted on the resident as it did not demonstrate that it had accurate records of events. The Ombudsman therefore considers it appropriate to make a separate finding about the landlord’s record keeping.
The Ombudsman has issued guidance about record keeping in May 2023, Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management (available via this link: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf), which stresses the importance of good record keeping, describing it as “the closest thing the sector could get to a silver bullet” enabling landlords to provide a better service. Although this Service acknowledges that the Spotlight Report was published after the date of the resident’s complaint, we recommend that the landlord pays close attention to the Report and takes steps to implement relevant recommendations to improve its record keeping.
Due to the failure of the landlord to keep effective records, late entry of information in the resident’s tenancy file, and the impact of poor record keeping on the overall management of this case, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping and has issued a wider order under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme to review its policies and practices in connection to the issues highlighted in this report.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident a total of £750 in compensation, less the £50 previously offered by the landlord if this has already been paid to the resident, comprising of:
  1. £200 for the landlord’s failure to apply its ASB policy when responding to resident’s reports.
  2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to take effective and prompt action in response to the reports of ASB.
  3. £250 for the landlord’s poor record keeping when handling the resident’s ASB case.
  4. Evidence must be provided to this Service that this compensation has been paid.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme, within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must carry out a review of its practice in relation to handling ASB cases. The review should be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation and draw on the knowledge and experience that the landlord has gained from handling other cases. The review should cover, as a minimum, the following:
1. an exploration of why the failings identified in this investigation occurred;
2. a review of the landlord’s existing databases to ensure it can capture required information and identify whether staff require training on using the systems and the importance of keeping accurate, contemporaneous notes in a timely manner;
3. a review of its internal processes for how ASB cases are handled during a change of officer, ensuring that adequate action plans are in place, records are fully up to date, and that all parties (including external agencies) are aware of the change of officer;
4. a review its ASB policy and ensure there are adequate provisions for establishing effective communication with the police and other agencies, when appropriate, at an early stage of an ASB case. This review must also cover circumstances where it may be appropriate to make a safeguarding referral, particularly if the alleged perpetrator and/or victim is a child or an adult who is known to be at risk of abuse or neglect, and amend the ASB policy accordingly;
5. a knowledge and skills audit of staff handling ASB reports, ensuring that relevant staff are fully trained on managing ASB and on the importance of record keeping, with any gaps in training addressed.
Within 16 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must, following the review, produce a report setting out:
1. the findings and learnings from the review;
2. recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future;
3. a revised ASB policy which addresses learnings from the review and from the failings identified in this investigation.
The landlord should embed the recommendation in its report within its wider transformation programme, to inform practice in other areas of service delivery, where relevant, with appropriate oversight.
The landlord must provide a copy of the final report to its governing body and member responsible for complaints, if appointed, for scrutiny. The governing body should agree how it will provide oversight of the implementation of any recommendation made following the review. The landlord must also provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman.
The landlord should commit to revisiting the issues 6 months after the report has been finalised to check whether changes in practice have been embedded.