Innisfree Housing Association Limited (202112253)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112253

Innisfree Housing Association Limited

7 June 2023

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) by her neighbour.
The landlord’s complaints handling has also been investigated.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord with a tenancy start date of 17 August 2015.
The property is a second floor, one bedroom flat within a sheltered scheme. The landlord has noted that the resident has physical and mental health vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s ASB policy defines behaviour which is considered to be antisocial. This includes harassment and intimidating behaviour, such as verbal abuse. Types of behaviour that the landlord will not investigate as antisocial include minor personal conflict such as “dirty looks”, disagreements over the use of communal spaces and disagreements between neighbours where there is no breach of tenancy.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out the landlord’s approach to dealing with reports of ASB from tenants and the action which the landlord will take. This includes that the landlord will:
1. Investigate each case fully and conduct a risk assessment to ensure that any action taken is both proportionate and appropriate.
2. Contact the person reporting the ASB within one working day of the initial report to discuss the concerns and arrange to complete a risk assessment.
3. Listen actively to all parties involved to understand how the behaviour is affecting each individual and the community.
4. Make all parties aware of the lead staff member dealing with the case and how to contact them.
5. Assess the case to consider the severity and persistence of the perpetrators’ behaviour and the impact on the witnesses, victims, and community.
6. Determine the level of risk to establish the most appropriate response in order to protect all parties from further harm.
7. Agree a clear action plan and share the responsibilities and timeframes of this with all parties.
8. Review all cases of ASB regularly to assess the effectiveness of the actions being taken and to ensure that the support being provided is in line with the landlord’s policies and procedures.
9. Support witnesses and victims of ASB to report their concerns and ensure that they understand the investigative process. The landlord will provide them with a realistic understanding of the actions that can be considered and the timeframes for these actions. Victims and witnesses are signposted to further support where required.
10. In cases where the investigation has determined that there is no ASB taking place, and the concerns are to be addressed using other forms of tenancy management outside of the ASB policy, the witness/victims are to be made aware of this and the actions agreed.
The ASB policy explains that legal action may be taken against perpetrators if all reasonable attempts of intervention have been attempted and there has been no clear change in behaviour. The ASB policy describes eviction as the last action to be pursued. It will be considered where other legal remedies have failed. For eviction to be considered, there must be sufficient evidence of ASB and evidence of substantial effect on victims or the community.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out the landlord’s approach to dealing with complaints. These are defined by reference to this Service’s Complaint Handling Code, being an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents. The complaints policy states that the cause of dissatisfaction must have occurred within the last six months for the complaint to be considered.
On receipt of a complaint, the complaints policy provides that the landlord will attempt to provide a resolution to it within 3 working days. If the resident’s complaint cannot be resolved at the point of complaint, or if the resident requests it, it will be treated as a formal complaint. This is a 2 stage procedure.
At stage 1, a member of staff acting as Investigating Complaints Officer will investigate the complaint and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of when the resident made the complaint.
If the resident is not satisfied with the outcome of their complaint, they can ask for it to be reviewed within 28 working days of when they receive their outcome letter. The complaints policy does not specify a timeframe within which the stage 2 review outcome is to be completed. Under the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, landlords should respond to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.

Summary of events

The resident’s complaint was that she had suffered verbal abuse and intimidation from her neighbour over a number of years which the landlord had failed properly to address. The resident’s desired outcome was for the landlord to evict her neighbour. Her neighbour is also a tenant of the landlord.
The neighbour will be referred to as “the perpetrator” in this investigation report.
It is noted that the resident’s complaint includes reference to historic reports of ASB by the perpetrator dating back many years. For the reasons stated in paragraph 60, the focus of this investigation report is the period from March 2021, being six months period prior to the resident lodging her complaint.
The landlord has provided records of its contact with the resident for the period from 9 September 2020 to 16 October 2022.
By way of background and context, the contact log shows that there were two reports by the resident of intimidating behaviour by the perpetrator prior to March 2021:
1. On 9 September 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that the perpetrator had coughed on her. This occurred during the time of the Covid-19 pandemic and caused her anxiety. The resident reported the incident to the police as well as to the landlord. The landlord’s Housing Officer responded to the incident by contacting the resident by telephone, agreeing with the resident that she would keep incident logs, and explaining the action which the landlord would take. In a follow up call to the resident on 5 November 2020, the resident stated that all was well and that the perpetrator had been quiet and not bothered her recently.
2. On 12 January 2021, the resident made a further report of intimidating behaviour by the perpetrator. The resident’s friend, also a tenant in the block, was a witness to the incident and made a separate report to the landlord in his capacity as a tenant. The reported behaviour, as described by the witness, was that the perpetrator had stood near the entrance to the building and puffed his chest out when he and the resident tried to enter. The witness reported that the perpetrator had coughed towards them both. The landlord’s Housing Officer took details of the report and instructed the Scheme Manager for the property to remind residents to wear a mask in communal areas and stay away from the other residents.
On 18 March 2021, the landlord’s Housing Officer called the resident at her request to discuss an incident which had occurred in the shared laundry room on 16 March 2021. A detailed note of the incident is contained in the landlord’s log. The resident described a situation where she had wished to use a washing machine which was full of her neighbour’s laundry. Her neighbour was in the communal area and pointed in her face and told her that it was his washing. The resident left and later returned. She found the washing had been moved but the machine was full of water which had spilled on the floor. The resident reported the matter to the Scheme Manager who subsequently coordinated the use of the laundry machines between the resident and the perpetrator.
In response to this incident, the landlord’s Housing Officer confirmed to the resident during the telephone call that the resident had acted correctly in reporting the matter to the Scheme Manager and that no ASB had taken place because she had handled the incident well.
The resident expressed concern about what she would do in a future similar situation if the Scheme Manager was not available. The resident expressed the view that something needed to be done about the perpetrator’s behaviour and that she would take him to court if needed.
The landlord’s Housing Officer agreed to speak to the Scheme Manager about the incident and revert to the resident by 22 March 2021. An updating text was sent to the resident by the landlord’s Housing Officer on 22 March 2021, advising that she was waiting to hear back from her management team. It is not clear from the contact log whether there were further communications between the resident and the landlord concerning this incident.
On 26 August 2021, the resident contacted this Service with a complaint that she had reported ASB to the landlord but that it was not addressing the issues. She confirmed that she had not raised a formal complaint. This Service agreed to assist by raising the complaint for the resident.
On 9 September 2021, this Service wrote to the landlord by email setting out details of the resident’s complaint. The matter concerned the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB. The details of the issues as described by the resident were set out in the email, namely:
1. that her neighbour racially abused her and harassed her;
2. that her neighbour intimidated her;
3. that she was not able to go downstairs in the evenings to put her bins out because she was too scared in case the neighbour attacked her;
4. that her neighbour drank and got aggressive;
5. that she walked around on eggshells because she was too scared of her neighbour.
The outcome sought by the resident was that she would like the ASB to stop.
This Service requested that the landlord provide a response to the complaint within 10 working days.
On 16 September 2021, the landlord’s log notes that the resident reported a further incident of ASB by the perpetrator. The Housing Officer sent a letter to the resident dated the same day which summarised the reported incident. This was described as aggressive and intimidating behaviour by the perpetrator, consisting of being verbally aggressive to the resident during an altercation. The neighbour reportedly spat at the resident in a public place which was not the tenant’s building. The resident had not reported the matter to the police.
The letter describes the action already taken by the landlord’s Housing Officer in response to the report as follows:
1. The Housing Officer’s colleague had spoken to the resident in person to discuss her complaint and concerns.
2. The Housing Officer had interviewed the resident over the telephone to discuss the complaint and record her concerns.
3. She had made the Scheme Manager aware of the complaint and concerns.
4. She had made contact with the perpetrator regarding the incident.
The letter described the action that the landlord’s Housing Officer would be taking. This was that she would be monitoring the situation alongside the Scheme Manager and reviewing any further evidence provided by the resident.
The letter stated that there were conflicting reports of the incident and that no evidence had been provided that could lead to enforcement action being taken at that time.
The letter recorded that the resident had said she felt uncomfortable in the communal areas of the building and around the perpetrator. The resident was advised to call the police if she had concerns for her safety. Details were given of agencies who could give her independent advice on the matter.
On 17 September 2021, the landlord acknowledged receipt of this Service’s email of 9 September 2021. It stated that it was aware of the situation reported by the resident and that the housing team was in regular contact to offer support and take appropriate and proportionate action. The email confirmed that the landlord had been in contact with the resident to address her concerns at Stage 1 of its complaints procedure with the aim of finding a satisfactory resolution.
Notwithstanding this confirmation, it seems that the landlord did not in fact invoke its complaints procedure at this point.
On 24 September 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord, stating that she was unhappy with its response. She asked for her complaint to be escalated to Stage 2. It is clear from this that the resident had understood that the landlord’s letter of 16 September 2021 was the landlord’s Stage 1 response to her complaint.
In her letter of 24 September 2021, the resident stated:
1. that she had moved into the property in 2013 and had not been living there long before she was approached by the perpetrator who had verbally and racially abused her;
2. that there had been many incidents since then;
3. there were discussions and communications concerning these incidents with various representatives of the landlord;
4. that she had made reports to the police;
5. that she wished for the neighbour to be evicted.
The resident asked for a response within 20 working days.
A note was left by the perpetrator with the Scheme Manager on 30 September 2021. He had been informed that the police had called when he was out. He denied insulting anyone.
The Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) for the area reported to the Housing Officer by email of 2 October 2021 that she had been called to the building by the resident who was feeling harassed and threatened by another resident.
The resident’s letter of 24 September 2021, requesting an escalation to Stage 2 was apparently not received by the landlord. A duplicate copy, together with a covering letter dated 13 October 2021, was provided by the resident to the Housing Officer at a meeting which took place at the resident’s home on 15 October 2021 to discuss her reports of harassment. The covering letter repeated the resident’s request that her complaint be escalated to Stage 2 and she asked for a response within 10 working days. She said that she did not feel that her complaints had been dealt with properly or fairly by the landlord. The letters she had received from the landlord appeared to be standard letters and she would like to know in writing what next steps the landlord was going to take.
A summary of what was discussed at the meeting on 15 October 2021 is set out in a letter from the Housing Officer to the resident dated 12 November 2021. This letter refers to the fact that the resident was not happy with the response to her Stage 1 complaint and wanted the complaint escalated to Stage 2 of the procedure. The Housing Officer confirmed that the resident’s letters had been forwarded to the management team to progress.
The letter also summarised the account given by the resident of the alleged harassment she had suffered from the perpetrator. Not all of the incidents which were discussed had concerned, or been witnessed by, the resident directly. Of those that concerned the resident directly, the resident explained that she was subject to verbal abuse referring to her gender and nationality when in the laundry room or when taking out her bin. The resident referred to an incident in September 2021 when she was going to empty her bin and had to stop when the perpetrator appeared and looked at her as if to say that he would lock her out when she went through the door. There is no reference in the landlord’s contact log to the resident having reported this incident at the time. The resident mentioned making several calls to the police over 6 years but that the police had failed to take any action. The resident reiterated that the outcome she was seeking was for the perpetrator to be evicted.
In the letter, the Housing Officer explained that in the absence of independent or credible evidence to corroborate the allegations made against the perpetrator, tenancy enforcement action, especially eviction, would not be considered proportionate at this time. The resident was advised to continue to log all future incidents and not to have any direct or indirect communication with the perpetrator and to notify the police of any significant threats made towards her directly by him.
The letter explained the action which the Housing Officer intended to take. This was to visit the perpetrator to give him the opportunity to respond to the allegations. The Housing Officer stated that she did not know if the information gathered from that meeting would alter the landlord’s current position but was hopeful that it would put a stop to any further incidents.
The landlord’s Housing Officer liaised with the PCSO regarding the outcome of this meeting and suggested a joint visit to the perpetrator to discuss the matter with him. In the event, it seems that the PCSO was unable to attend the visit with the Housing Officer.
The Housing Officer visited the alleged perpetrator on 26 October 2021 to discuss the matter and recorded it in a note of the meeting. The resident’s complaints of harassment were put to the perpetrator which he denied. He was advised not to have any direct or indirect communication with the resident. The Housing Officer advised him that abuse directed against an individual on grounds of their race is unlawful and would be a breach of his tenancy obligations if evidence was presented to support the allegations.
On 18 November 2021, after further contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord to prompt it to provide a Stage 1 response to her complaint.
On 19 November 2021, the Operations Director of the landlord confirmed by email to this Service that it had not dealt with the resident’s complaint under the complaints policy. The landlord had judged that the resident’s complaint was a new request to address ASB and as such would fall outside its complaints policy. The landlord’s Operations Director acknowledged that she had signalled that it would be dealt with under the complaints policy. She confirmed that the matter had been dealt with as a service request and undertook to explain this to the resident.
On 26 November 2021, the Operations Director spoke to the resident. The discussion is confirmed in a letter dated 3 December 2021.
In the letter, the landlord’s Operations Director:
1. confirmed that the purpose of the call was to make clear how the landlord would be treating her concern about the behaviour of the perpetrator and that this would be under the ASB policy rather than the complaints policy;
2. recorded the resident’s understanding and agreement to this;
3. referred to the actions taken by the landlord to deal with the case and how this would be managed going forward, as set out in the Housing Officer’s letter of 12 November 2021;
4. stated that she was satisfied that the actions taken were in line with the landlord’s ASB policy;
5. recorded that she had discussed the neighbour’s behaviour with the resident and she had advised that there had been no further incidents;
6. addressed the comments of the resident in her letter of 24 September 2021 that she wanted the perpetrator to be evicted, explaining that taking away someone’s home is a last resort and that no evidence had been provided that could lead to enforcement action being taken at this time.
On 21 December 2021, after further contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord stating that the resident had said that she wished to complain about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB. The resident was unhappy that the landlord had appeared reluctant to commit to tenancy enforcement. The landlord was requested to address the resident’s concerns under its complaints procedure.
In response the same day, the landlord provided to this Service a copy of its letter of 3 December 2021 to the resident and stated a further copy would be provided to the resident.
On 23 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that she thought that another tenant was listening outside her front door. She believed this was to relay information to the perpetrator. She requested that the landlord speak to the tenant. The Operations Director spoke to the resident the same day. She informed her that it would not be appropriate for her to speak to the tenant. She offered a meeting to discuss the issue in the New Year which the resident declined. A follow up call was made to the resident on 6 January 2022 by the Housing Officer. Reassurance was provided to the resident that the tenant concerned did not have a master key to the resident’s flat.
On 12 January 2022, this Service reiterated its previous request that the landlord address the resident’s concerns as part of its complaints procedure. A response was requested to be provided by 26 January 2022.
A Stage 1 response was provided by the landlord’s Operations Director on 25 January 2022. In the response, the landlord:
1. Noted that the resident wished to complain about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB and that she was unhappy that the landlord had appeared reluctant to commit to tenancy enforcement.
2. Explained that the Operations Director had reviewed the communications between the resident and her Housing Officers regarding ASB as well as her own communications with the resident on 26 November and 3 December 2021.
3. Apologised that it had not initially addressed the complaint under the complaints policy and explained that ASB was managed under the ASB policy rather than the complaints policy.
4. Apologised that it had misunderstood that the resident was happy for it to be addressed under the ASB policy and upheld this part of the complaint.
5. Reassured the resident that it took all reports of ASB very seriously and took appropriate and proportionate action to discourage or help to resolve it.
6. Stated that the letters from the Housing Officer dated 16 September 2021 and 12 November 2021 explained the actions taken and how the case would be monitored going forward and that substantial evidence was needed to take enforcement action.
7. Explained that it considered that the actions taken were appropriate and proportionate to the case and of the standard expected from its housing officers.
8. Explained that it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint that the landlord was reluctant to commit to enforcement action.
9. Provided information on how to escalate the complaint to Stage 2 of the complaints policy.
On 1 February 2022, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to Stage 2 as she was not happy with the way that the landlord had dealt with her complaint.
The landlord’s CEO offered to speak to the resident regarding her complaint. The resident indicated that she was happy for the review to proceed without it.
A stage 2 response was provided by the CEO of the landlord on 25 February 2022. In the response:
1. The CEO summarised what had been considered in the review; he had looked at the Stage 1 response; he had spoken to the Operations Director and the Housing Officer about the complaint; he had reviewed the letters sent to the resident by the Housing Officer and other information which it had describing the resident’s concerns; and he had spoken to the perpetrator.
2. The CEO summarised the resident’s concerns about the perpetrator’s behaviour as detailed in the complaint.
3. He concluded that the landlord had followed its ASB policy. It had heard the resident’s concerns and tried to address them, including by involving the PCSO and directly addressing them with the perpetrator. It had put her concerns to the perpetrator and been clear that such behaviour was not acceptable. The perpetrator had denied he had behaved in the way described.
4. The CEO stated that in the absence of more evidence, the landlord was not justified in taking any further action.
5. He explained that this did not mean that the landlord did not believe the resident when she expressed the concerns, but rather that there was insufficient evidence for the landlord to do more at the moment.
6. In relation to the handling of the resident’s complaint, the Stage 1 response had recognised the landlord’s misunderstanding which had led to the complaint not initially being dealt with under the complaints procedure and had apologised for it and upheld this part of the resident’s complaint. The CEO considered this to be a reasonable approach and repeated the apology.
7. He reassured the resident that it would still actively manage her concerns under the ASB policy.
8. The response confirmed that it had reached the end of the internal complaints procedure and copied the letter to this Service.
The resident subsequently made a complaint to this Service. In an email of 16 June 2022, the resident stated that she was dissatisfied with the length of time she had been complaining to the landlord about her neighbour which dated back to before 2018 and continued. She described incidents which had occurred over the past few months, of her doorbell being rung in the middle of the night, several times at different times, and being video recorded by the perpetrator while she was at her window. She wanted this Service to find out why this was still happening and for the perpetrator to be moved somewhere else.
Whilst it is noted from the resident’s email of 16 June 2022 that she continues to report incidents of ASB by her neighbour, this investigation report will not consider events which have occurred after the date of the landlord’s Stage 2 response of 25 February 2022. This is because the landlord has not had an opportunity to respond to any complaint which may be raised by the resident in respect of those events.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident’s complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of her historic reports of ASB over a number of years.
The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is set out in its Scheme. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in its opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. The landlord’s own complaints policy similarly states that the cause of dissatisfaction must have occurred within the prior 6 months for the complaint to be considered.
The resident’s complaint was first lodged as a complaint to the landlord (with assistance from this Service) on 9 September 2021. The landlord could reasonably be expected to have reviewed its response to the resident’s ASB reports during the 6-month period prior to this date. Therefore, this investigation report has focussed on assessing the landlord’s handling of the resident’s more recent reports of ASB by her neighbour from March 2021 as described above.
It is also noted that the outcome of the complaint sought by the resident was that the landlord should evict her neighbour. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide this outcome.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

In considering complaints concerning ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has adequately investigated the reported issues in the necessary timeframes and taken appropriate action in line with its policies and procedures.
During the period covered by this investigation report, several incidents of ASB by the perpetrator were reported by the resident. The landlord’s ASB policy explains the actions which the landlord is expected to take in response to these reports, as set out above. These include that the landlord should make contact with the person reporting the ASB within one working day to discuss their concerns; investigate and assess the case; establish the most appropriate response; and agree a clear action plan which should be shared with the parties.
On 16 March 2021, the resident experienced behaviour from the perpetrator while using the communal laundry facilities, which she found intimidating. The landlord reacted appropriately and in line with its ASB policy by discussing the issue over the telephone with the resident at her request on 18 March 2021. Having investigated the incident, the landlord’s conclusion was that no ASB had occurred because the situation had been well managed. This was a reasonable assessment for the landlord to make of the circumstances, as described by the resident, and consistent with the landlord’s definition of ASB in its ASB policy.
The landlord’s ASB policy also provides that in cases where the investigation has determined that there is no ASB taking place, and the concerns are to be addressed using other forms of tenancy management outside of the ASB policy, the witness/victims are to be made aware of this and the actions agreed. In line with this, the Housing Officer explained to the resident that no ASB had taken place and agreed that she would speak to the Scheme Manager about the incident and would revert to the resident. It is not clear from the contact log whether there was further communications between the resident and the landlord by way of follow up to this discussion which would have been helpful for the landlord to record.
On 16 September 2021, the resident reported an incident of the perpetrator being verbally aggressive towards her during an altercation and that he spat at her in a public place. The landlord’s responses to the incident are recorded in its letter to the resident dated 16 September 2021. The landlord appropriately responded to, and investigated, the resident’s report by discussing it with the resident that day, interviewing the resident over the telephone and making contact with the perpetrator. The landlord also contacted the Scheme Manager to make her aware of the incident. On investigation, the landlord’s Housing Officer found that there were conflicting accounts of the incident and concluded that no evidence had been provided which could lead to enforcement action being taken at that time. This was explained to the resident. The landlord’s action was an appropriate and proportionate response to the circumstances as described by the resident, taking into account the nature of the evidence available.
The future action which the landlord planned to take was also explained. This was to monitor the situation with the Scheme Manager and review any further evidence provided by the resident. Support and advice was given to the resident who was signposted to agencies who could give her further support. These steps were also in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
On 15 October 2021, the resident’s reports of ASB were further discussed at the meeting between the landlord’s Housing Officer and the resident. The meeting and the outcome were summarised in the landlord’s letter to the resident of 12 November 2021. The landlord considered the details of ASB described by the resident and concluded that, in the absence of independent and credible evidence to corroborate the allegations made against the alleged perpetrator, tenancy enforcement action, especially eviction, would not be considered proportionate. This was an appropriate response given the landlord’s assessment of the lack of evidence available to support the resident’s reports. Under the landlord’s ASB policy, legal action is taken against perpetrators only if all reasonable attempts of intervention have failed and eviction is a last resort.
In line with the landlord’s ASB policy, the landlord explained the future action which it intended to take, which was to interview the perpetrator to give him an opportunity to respond to the allegations. It also encouraged the resident to continue reporting her concerns and gave appropriate advice and support to the resident on managing the relationship with the perpetrator. The landlord followed the course of action agreed and attended the perpetrator on 26 October 2021 and delivered appropriate warnings and advice to him.
On 23 December 2021, the resident reported that another tenant was listening outside her front door which she believed was to relay information to the perpetrator. She requested that the landlord speak to the tenant. The landlord’s Operations Director responded promptly to this report by speaking to the resident the same day. She explained it would not have been appropriate to speak to the tenant concerned and offered a meeting to discuss the issue. This was a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns. The landlord supported the resident by a follow up call on 6 January 2022 when reassurance was provided to her concerns that the tenant might have a master key to the resident’s flat.
In conclusion, the landlord promptly and adequately investigated the issues reported by the resident and took appropriate action in line with its policies and procedures. Although this Service appreciates that the resident has been caused distress by the perpetrator’s behaviour, this Service has found no evidence of maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB in the period covered by this investigation report.

The landlord’s complaints handling

On 9 September 2021, this Service wrote to the landlord by email setting out details of the resident’s complaint and requesting that the landlord provide a response to it within 10 working days.

73. On considering this request, the landlord appears to have misdirected itself as to the operation of its own complaints policy. As a result, it wrongly determined that the resident’s complaint should be dealt with as a fresh service request under its ASB policy. Although the resident’s complaint concerned the landlord’s responses to her reports of ASB, it was not a fresh service request but an expression of dissatisfaction about the landlord’s alleged lack of action. As such, it fell within the definition of a complaint in the landlord’s complaints policy and should have been dealt with accordingly.

74. The landlord’s error was compounded by the fact that it did not initially communicate to the resident that it was intending to deal with her complaint as a fresh service request. Confusion was also caused when the landlord confirmed to this Service on 17 September 2021 that it would be providing a Stage 1 response. This indicated that the landlord was dealing with the matter under its complaints procedure when it was not.

75. The landlord’s error caused confusion for the resident with regard to the progress of her complaint. This is evident from the fact that the resident understood that the landlord’s letter of 16 September 2021 was its Stage 1 response to her complaint and which she requested by letter of 24 September 2021 be escalated to Stage 2. At this point, however, the landlord had not produced a Stage 1 response as the complaints procedure had not yet been invoked.

76. At the meeting between the resident and the Housing Officer on 15 October 2021, the resident explained that she was not happy with the response to her Stage 1 complaint and that she wanted the complaint escalated. The resident was informed by the Housing Officer that her letters had been forwarded to the management team to progress. However, the management team took no action at that stage either to contact the resident to explain that her complaint was being dealt with under the ASB policy or to process the matter as a complaint.

77. As a result, the resident remained in the dark that the landlord was not dealing with her complaint under its complaints policy. This did not come to light until the resident sought further assistance from this Service and a further communication from this Service to the landlord was sent on 18 November 2021, asking that it respond to her complaint.

78.On 19 November 2021, the landlord confirmed by email to this Service that it had not dealt with the resident’s complaint under its complaints policy. The landlord acknowledged that it had signalled that it would be dealt with under the complaints policy. It confirmed that the matter had been dealt with as a service request and undertook to explain this to the resident. The landlord’s Operations Director did so on 26 November 2021 and her letter of 3 December 2021 confirms that the resident agreed to this.

79.However, the resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB and wished to complain. This Service communicated this to the landlord on 21 December 2021, asking that it address the resident’s concerns under its complaints procedure. A further communication from this Service was required on 12 January 2022 before the landlord initiated the complaints procedure.

80.As a result, the resident’s complaint, which was first made on 9 September 2021, did not receive a Stage 1 response until 25 January 2022, a period of 17 weeks. Had the matter been dealt with under the landlord’s complaints policy, the Stage 1 response should have been provided in 10 working days.

81.Once the complaints process was initiated, the landlord dealt with the complaint in line with its complaints policy at both Stages 1 and 2. The resident’s complaint was investigated and addressed. It was explained to the resident that the landlord had followed its ASB policy in dealing with her reports of ASB and it was explained why the landlord was not justified in taking enforcement action in the circumstances. The incorrect treatment of the complaint under the ASB policy was acknowledged at Stage 1, and an explanation and an apology given. The resident’s complaint was partially upheld on this basis. On review at Stage 2, the landlord reiterated this apology.

82.The failure of the landlord to deal with the resident’s complaint under its complaints policy at the outset, and until directed to do so by this Service, was a service failure. It was appropriate for the landlord when providing Stage 1 and Stage 2 responses to acknowledge this failure, to partially uphold the resident’s complaint on this basis and to offer an apology. However, an apology alone does not reflect the detriment to the resident. The resident had to spend significantly more time and trouble in seeking to resolve her complaint than would reasonably be expected, due to the landlord’s poor complaint handling at the outset. This also caused delay and confusion for the resident. Under the circumstances, an award of £100 would be reasonable compensation to the resident.

Determination (decision)

83.In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB in the period covered by this investigation report.

84.In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Reasons

85.The contemporaneous evidence shows that the landlord appropriately responded to, and investigated, the resident’s reports of ASB. The action the landlord took was in line with its ASB policy.

86.The landlord failed to deal with the resident’s complaint under its complaints policy at the outset, requiring the involvement of this Service before it did so. This resulted in delay and confusion in dealing with the resident’s complaint.

Order

87.The landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation for the time and trouble caused to her by the failings identified in its complaint handling.

88.The landlord should contact this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to evidence its compliance with the above order.

Recommendations

89.The landlord should implement staff training on recognising and dealing with complaints under the landlord’s complaints policy.

90.The landlord should review its complaints policy for compliance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It is noted that the landlord’s complaints policy does not provide a timeframe for a stage 2 response as required by the Code.

91.The landlord should reply to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to advise of its intentions in regard to the above recommendations.