Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association Limited (202127482)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127482

Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association Limited

29 July 2022


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

  1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a two-bedroomed ground floor flat, within a building comprised of similar properties. The landlord is the freeholder.
  2. On 13 October 2021, the resident reported to the landlord an incident of antisocial behaviour (ASB) involving her neighbour and several other individuals, and threats of violence towards the resident and her family. In response to the report, the landlord contacted the resident the next day, reviewed CCTV footage of the incident, communicated with the police and proposed to undertake a risk assessment. Due to the severity of the report, the landlord wrote to the resident on 14 October 2021, stating that they would serve the neighbour with a ‘Notice of Seeking Possession’ (NOSP). The landlord made several attempts to contact the neighbour before issuing the NOSP, and kept the resident informed that it had not been able to get a hold of the neighbour. The NOSP was eventually served on 8 November 2021.
  3. The Police visited the resident on 13 October 2021 and the neighbour on 25 October 2021. The landlord has advised this Service that the police “confirmed their own findings of fault on both sides, and subsequently closed the case.”
  4. On 23 November 2021 the landlord interviewed the neighbour, who made counter allegations regarding the resident. The allegations were also of a serious nature. The allegations were relayed to the resident, and a warning given by the landlord, stating that the resident should not approach or communicate with her neighbour. The resident was unhappy with both the counter allegations, and the tone of the email in which they had been sent. She replied on the same day, refuting the neighbour’s claims and asking questions about her own ASB report. The landlord responded to the resident on 24 November 2021, reiterating its position on wishing to keep the two tenants apart. It explained that it had to take all reports of ASB seriously and had treated both parties equally in its handling of both reports. The landlord then stated that it would be closing the investigation, as it felt that the matter had been sufficiently dealt with.
  5. Copies of the resident’s original complaint and the landlord’s response to it have not been provided for this investigation. However, from other communication supplied it is apparent that her complaint regarded the landlord’s handling of the counter allegations, along with complaints about how the original ASB report had been handled. From later communication it appears that the resident’s complaint was partially upheld, and she was awarded a shopping voucher for £50.00.
  6. Dissatisfied with the stage one response, the resident escalated her complaint on 6 January 2022. Her complaint was lengthy and detailed, but primarily comprised of her concern that the counter allegations had been unfairly relied on, and she remained upset with how the landlord had handled her initial reports of the ASB, due to the landlord having not interviewed her witnesses. She provided numerous examples of behaviour by the neighbour over the last several years, and rejected the landlord’s compensation voucher, saying that “What I want is a fair and thorough investigation into this matter”.
  7. The landlord sent its final response on 18 January 2022. The response was detailed and addressed each of the resident’s concerns. The resident’s complaint had stated that she had been refused a right of reply, that her witnesses had not been interviewed and that it had taken six weeks to interview only one of the perpetrators from the incident. She also stated that ISHA had defamed her character. In addressing the resident’s concerns, the landlord stated that the resident had not been refused a right of reply, referencing an email on 23 November 2021, inviting her to discuss the counter allegations with the landlord. The witnesses had not been interviewed, as the landlord had believed initially that it had sufficient information to carry out its investigation. The landlord acknowledged that an action plan should have been made with the resident, and stated that this had been fed back to its staff. It acknowledged that it would have been useful to have interviewed the witnesses, as there were differing versions of events. The landlord explained that as only the neighbour was a tenant, it could not interview her guests in relation to this matter, as they did not fall within its authority. It also explained that it had struggled to get hold of the neighbour, which had been conveyed to the resident at the time. Addressing the alleged defamation of character, the landlord acknowledged that its email to the resident on the 23 November 2021 was ‘badly worded’ and should not have implied that the landlord was accepting the counter allegations, as they were unproven and uncorroborated, for which the landlord offered its apologies. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint that her reports of ASB were badly handled and offered to interview the witnesses for a sense of completion in the matter.
  8. In her complaint to this Service the resident explained that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the ASB incident, and the counter allegations made against her. She sought an apology from the landlord, compensation for distress, and for the counter allegations and warning to be taken off her record.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord has an ASB policy that sets out certain expectations in its handling of ASB reports: The landlord undertakes to respond within one to five days depending on the severity of the ASB. It also undertakes to agree a ‘Complainant’s Action Plan’, for dealing with initial investigations, as well as a risk assessment for all complainants. It should also ‘contact complainants at least once per calendar month with an update regarding their case’. The landlord is expected to contact the residents when it closes a case, giving clear reasons for its decision. The policy also highlights that landlords should work with other organisations to ensure the best outcome for residents.
  2. In response to the resident’s ASB reports, the landlord contacted the resident within one day of the incident. It reviewed CCTV footage to investigate the claims and communicated with police officers about the incident. A decision was also made to serve the neighbour with a NOSP. The landlord kept in contact with the resident over the months and kept her informed of the case progression. This included updates as to the difficulties it had in getting hold of the neighbour for interviewing. The landlord informed the resident of serving the NOSP, and of the subsequent interview it managed to conduct with her. It also informed the neighbour of its decision to close the investigation, and for the reasons behind this. However, according to its policy, at the outset the landlord should have created an action plan with the resident. This may have managed the resident’s expectations more effectively, and could have addressed whether witnesses would or would not be interviewed. The landlord acknowledged the lack of an action plan in its stage two complaint response, proposing to retrain staff on this element of ASB handling and stating that it would interview witnesses for clarity. These steps and actions by the landlord were reasonable and either in line with its ASB policy, or were addressed in its stage two response.
  3. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that in response to ASB the landlord could potentially take legal action against the perpetrator, which may result in losing their tenancy if “the harassment continues after the association has given written warning to cease the harassment”. The landlord served a NOSP on the neighbour after the incident of ASB was reported because of how serious the alleged threats of violence were. Legal action to seek possession of a home is usually the final and ultimate tool available to a landlord, and in this case shows that the landlord took the resident’s reports very seriously.
  4. Police officers interviewed the resident and the neighbour on 13 October 2021 and 25 October 2021 respectively. A written report from the police was not provided, however the landlord has stated that the police verbally reported to it that there was fault on both sides of the parties. The police subsequently closed the case without taking any further action. In the resident’s email dated 26 October 2021, she also states that the police appear to think that she and her neighbour are “as bad as each other”, which would corroborate the landlord’s report. It is likely that the landlord was influenced by the police’s report that there was fault on both sides. It was not unreasonable for it to take advice from the appropriate authorities, and in line with its policy obligations to work with other organisations..
  5. The landlord interviewed the neighbour on 23 November 2021, where counter allegations against the resident were made. The landlord subsequently informed the resident about the allegations and warned her not to approach or communicate with the neighbour in any way. The resident was dissatisfied with the tone of the landlord’s email, and strenuously denied the allegations. The landlord explained that it had taken the same actions in investigating the counter allegations as it had for the resident’s report, and advised that both households had been warned to stay away from one another. The landlord had an obligation to investigate all reports of ASB, and so acted appropriately in considering the counter allegations and taking steps to keep those involved separated. The tone of the email can objectively be described as stern, and the resident’s distress at receiving it is understandable. It is better practice in ASB cases to discuss allegations with an alleged perpetrator before issuing a warning — something the landlord was clearly aware of because it said the same thing to the resident in one of its updates to her. Nonetheless, in the context of the police advice to the landlord that both parties had played a role in the altercation, the landlord’s warnings to both of them was not unreasonable, and the neighbour received the more serious NOSP.
  6. While this Service was not provided with the stage one complaint or response, it is clear that the resident’s complaint was that in handling her reports of ASB the landlord delayed interviewing the neighbour, did not interview the neighbour’s partner or son and, after the counter allegations were made, did not interview the witnesses to the incident. She felt that the witnesses would have been able to help refute the allegations against her. The resident was also unhappy with the tone of the email that had been sent to her containing the counter allegations, wanted these and the warning removed from her records. These concerns were reiterated in the resident’s stage two escalation on 6 January 2022. The landlord specifically responded to these points in its final complaint response. It explained that it had been proactive in attempting to interview the neighbour, and had served the NOSP when it had been unable to reach her. It also explained why it could not interview the neighbour’s partner and son, as they were not tenants and thus not under the landlord’s authority. The landlord acknowledged that it was common practice to interview witnesses when accounts of an incident differed, as was the case in this situation. It stated that it had fed this back to its staff, and offered to interview witnesses now, for completeness. Finally, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the poor choice of words in its email containing the counter allegations and warning to the resident. It agreed that there was no evidence to support the allegations about her. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint about its handling of her ASB reports. Overall, the landlord’s explanations, acknowledgements of its service failure, apologies, and commitment to learn from its mistakes, were reasonable and proportionate remedies.
  7. One of the outcomes sought by the resident from the landlord, and in her complaint to this Service, was the removal of the allegations about her, and the landlord’s warning, from her file. If the resident objects to such information in her file she would need to approach the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), as that issue is not one the Ombudsman can adjudicate on. Nonetheless, it is important to note that the landlord’s complaint response, in which it agrees there is no evidence to support the allegations, and acknowledges that the matter was not handled well, will also be in her file as a balance to the allegations.
  8. The landlord’s final complaint response was a transparent and frank response to the resident’s concerns, and acknowledged the areas where it had failed to provide a good service. It would be usual, in such circumstances (and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code), to offer a proportionate level of compensation along with the landlord’s other remedies. The landlord did not do that here. It is not clear why it didn’t. However, it had earlier offered a gesture of goodwill, in the form of vouchers, to the resident, and she had firmly rejected it, telling the landlord that she was instead seeking a more robust investigation of her complaint. That may be why the landlord did not consider compensation again, and if so, its reasoning is understandable. Nonetheless, a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to revisit that aspect of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

 

Recommendations

  1. As set out above, it would be unusual (in the circumstances of acknowledging service failings which clearly had a level of impact in terms of distress and frustration for a complainant) for a landlord not to offer some level of compensation, along with its apologies and commitments to service improvement.  Following the findings in this investigation the landlord is invited to consider re-examining this aspect of the complaint.