The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Magna Housing Limited (202208025)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208025

Magna Housing Limited

15 February 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlords handling of the resident’s reports of alleged antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a ground floor, one bedroom flat in a building owned by the landlord, a registered social housing provider. She moved into the property with her partner on 6 July 2018.
  2. There are reports throughout the complaint from the resident about different neighbours. For ease of reading the different neighbours will be referred to as ‘neighbour 1’ and ‘neighbour 2’.
  3. The resident made the following reports of alleged ASB to the landlord:
    1. On 23 July 2018, the resident reported she felt “intimidated” due to the actions of neighbour 1 who she said was “harassing her” and “shouting and stomping”. She said she had spoken to the police and the landlord’s Community Safety Team (CST) the previous week and had been keeping a log of all incidents. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to this.
    2. On 9 March 2019, the resident reported noise disturbance from the neighbour into the morning and said, “something needs to be done”. The landlord told the resident on 11 March 2019 the CST would contact her, but there is no evidence of this taking place.
    3. On 10 April 2019 she reported hearing neighbour 1 say “he was going to cut someone”. The landlord told her the same day when she hears such things to call the police immediately as concern for her welfare.
    4. On 19 May 2020 she reported neighbour 2 and friends had been running up and down the stairs into the morning. She also reported neighbour 1 had been up all-night shouting and talking and her and her partner had no sleep. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to these points.
    5. On 26 June 2020, the resident reported neighbour 1 had been knocking on her door every day and would scream if she did not answer. The landlord told her on 1 July 2020 it had tried to phone neighbour 1, there had been no answer, but it would continue to try.
  4. Third parties supported the resident and her partner by contacting the landlord as follows:
    1. Her employer emailed the landlord on 29 March 2019 to address the issues about neighbour 1 as the issue was affecting the resident and her partner’s ability to work. The landlord replied the same day stating they would add the email to the resident’s case file.
    2. Her employer emailed the landlord on 24 April 2020 stating the resident was unable to work from home due to threatening behaviour and noise from neighbour 1. They said the resident and her partner were unable to sleep. The landlord responded on 28 April 2020 stating it was writing to neighbour 1 and working with the police.
    3. The resident’s MP emailed the landlord on 27 May 2020 stating the resident felt unsafe in her own home and neighbour 1 had a “vendetta” against her for buying the property. The landlord replied to this the same day saying that neighbour 1’s health issues made it difficult to engage but it was hoping to move him to suitable accommodation or appropriate support.
  5. On 30 November 2020, the landlord told the resident neighbour 1 was moving out soon and it would close the resident’s ASB case. The resident’s complaint added further information for this period as follows.
    1. The resident stated she was informed by neighbour 1 on 12 December he would be moving on 22 December 2020. A different neighbour told her on 28 January 2021 neighbour 1 would be moving on 15 February 2021.
    2. Between 14 January and 13 February 2022, the resident stated she called an ambulance on a number of occasions when she overheard neighbour 1 in distress and/or unable to get up. She was informed by neighbour 1’s relative on 25 February 2021 that neighbour 1 had passed away on 13 February 2021.
  6. The resident raised a complaint on 4 March 2021 stating alleged ASB had been ongoing for two and a half years and nothing had been done to help the resident or her neighbours. She said she had not reported everything to the landlord as sometimes neighbour 1 had screamed or shouted for 20-30 minutes on most days. She included a comprehensive diary of incidents between 14 July 2018 and 25 February 2021 to the landlord. The landlord logged her complaint on 23 March 2021 but failed to provide any further response.
  7. The resident chased the response to her complaint on 11 February 2022 and the landlord responded on 9 March 2022 stating the following:
    1. It apologised for not responding to her complaint of 4 March 2021 and for its poor complaint service.
    2. It apologised for its poor communications and any distress caused.
    3. It said it had been supporting the resident with the alleged ASB up to 30 November 2020 and it had installed a new ASB lead who would address the issues in an unknown timeframe when they returned to work.
  8. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 20 July 2022 to investigate her complaint. Between 15 August and 5 December 2022, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide its final response to the resident, with a final date for response of 5 January 2023. The landlord provided its final response to her on 5 January 2023 accepting its service failing which it said it had previously acknowledged and apologised for. It said after reviewing the case it was not appropriate for it to award compensation.
  9. The Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation on 17 April 2023. The resident said she was owed compensation from the landlord for 3 years of stress, anxiety, and unhappiness. She said the landlord did not support her, was supporting neighbour 1 more than her and did not keep her updated at any point.

Assessment and findings

Scope of assessment.

  1. The purpose of this investigation is not to establish if ASB occurred, or which party in the neighbouring dispute was responsible. It is for the Ombudsman to determine whether, in response to reports of ASB, the landlord acted in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. As part of her complaint the resident has raised concerns about its awareness of ongoing ASB issues when she was purchasing the property. This Service is unable to consider this concern as under paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme would be more effective to seek remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure.
  3. This Service would not normally consider issues that were not raised through the landlord’s internal complaint process or to the Ombudsman within a reasonable timeframe. The resident’s complaint of 4 March 2021 referred to issues dating from 23 July 2018. However, the landlord accepted the timescales of the issues raised in its complaint responses of 9 March 2022 and 5 January 2023. As such this Service deems it appropriate to investigate all issues from 2018 onwards. The focus of the assessment will be on the events leading up to the resident’s formal complaint of 4 March 2021.
  4. It must be noted however, that records may be limited due to the amount of time that has passed. This Service asked the landlord to provide information relevant to the complaint about ASB from 2018 to 2021. The information received from the landlord was limited and it is uncertain if the information was ever available or has become unavailable due to timescales involved.

The landlords handling of the resident’s reports of alleged antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour.

  1. The landlord’s ASB Policy states it will not tolerate ASB and will take effective and early action to tackle it and it is committed to supporting victims. Its Procedure for Dealing with Reports of ASB says it aims to resolve ASB quickly, take appropriate action to remedy the situation and keep the complainant informed throughout the case.
  2. The landlord’s Procedure for Dealing with Reports of ASB defines ASB in 3 separate categories:
    1. Category A, allegations of extreme ASB, examples included threats of violence and harassment. It will respond in one working day.
    2. Category B, allegations of serious ASB, examples include aggressive and abusive behaviour and frequent and persistent disturbances. It will respond in three working days.
    3. Category C, allegations of nuisance, examples include constant door slamming. It will respond in five working days.
  3. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the residents reports of alleged ASB on 23 July 2018 and 19 May 2020. In failing to respond the landlord failed in its “commitment to support victims” and take “effective and early action to tackle ASB.”  Both failures to respond are of serious concern as follows:
    1. On 23 July 2018 she reported harassment from neighbour 1 and she felt “intimidated”. The landlord defines harassment as ‘extreme ASB’ and should have responded in one working day. Its failure to respond caused uncertainty to the resident who had only recently moved to the property and was making her first report to the landlord. The lack of response caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident and her partner, prolonging the intimidation they felt.
    2. On 19 May 2020 as well as making a report about neighbour 1, the resident made a first report of alleged ASB against neighbour 2. As this was the first report about neighbour 2 the landlord should have raised a new case in accordance with its procedure but failed to do so. Its failure to acknowledge and log either report within 3 working days made the resident feel she was not being listened to or that her report was being taken seriously.
  4. The landlord responded to reports of alleged ASB from the resident on 9 March and 10 April 2019 within its timescale for response. However, there were issues with both responses as follows:
    1. In its response of 11 March 2019, it told the resident its CST would call her back. There is no evidence of this taking place, causing further concern to the resident about whether it was taking her seriously.
    2. In its response of 10 April 2019 when the resident reported neighbour 1 saying he was “going to cut someone” it told her to call the police, which was appropriate. However, its ASB procedure says when ASB is of a criminal nature it should phone the police. There is no evidence of the landlord contacting the police around this time.
  5. The resident reported neighbour 1 was harassing her on 26 June 2020. In accordance with its ASB procedure for Category 1 ASB it should have replied in 1 working day. It replied in 3 working days which was outside of its timescale and ineffective, allowing the alleged harassment to persist. The landlord was unable to visit the resident due to COVID-19 restrictions so had attempted to call him, which was appropriate at the time.
  6. The landlord’s ASB procedure says when ASB is reported to it, it will take as much information as possible from the complainant, send an acknowledgement letter and it must discuss the options available to resolve the concerns including completing an action plan. In each of the reports above there is no evidence following the report that the landlord complied with its procedure. On each report it failed to take information from the complainant, failed to send an acknowledgement letter, failed to discuss the options available and failed to complete an action plan.
  7. The landlord’s ASB procedure states it has a number of non-legal or legal remedies available to it to resolve ASB including mediation, acceptable behaviour contracts (ABCs). It is unclear if any remedy was considered by the landlord as there is no evidence of these or of it advising the resident of this.
  8. The landlord informed the resident on 30 November 2020 that neighbour 1 would be moving in the near future, but neighbour 1 told her this would be some time in January 2022. The landlord closed the ASB case on 30 November 2020. In accordance with its ASB Policy it should only close a case where an amicable solution has been found, or ASB has ceased. Neither of these scenarios had taken place and the landlord should have kept the ASB case open until neighbour 1 had moved from the building.
  9. The landlord’s Procedure for Dealing with Reports of ASB states it will “keep the complainant informed throughout the case.” As previously mentioned, when the landlord receives a report of ASB it must complete an action plan which details its method and frequency of contact with the complainant.
  10. In providing evidence to this Service the landlord reviewed information provided by the resident regarding meetings at its offices on 4 October 2018 and 22 May 2019. The landlord confirmed it had no notes relating to these meetings.
  11. This Service has found little information to demonstrate the landlord kept the resident updated on the progression on its ASB case. The only evidence of this is as follows:
    1. On 5 April 2019, the landlord asked the resident how things were with neighbour 1. The resident reported the same day neighbour 1 had been banging doors. There is no evidence the landlord followed up on this.
    2. On 1 July 2020, the landlord told the resident it had attempted to phone neighbour 1 but he did not answer. There is no evidence of the landlord following up on this.
    3. On 3 June 2020 it arranged a phone call to discuss her ongoing concerns. There is no evidence of this call taking place or what may have discussed if it did.
  12. Other than the point above there is no evidence at any point from 23 July 2018 it kept the resident informed about what action it was taking and this was unreasonable. This had serious detriment to the resident as she believed she was not being listened to, had said on 9 March 2019 that she had “had enough” and believed the landlord was not addressing the alleged ASB with neighbour 1.
  13. There is evidence that the landlord checked in with the resident on 5 April 2019 when it asked how things were with neighbour 1 and the resident responded that they had been “banging doors”. There is no evidence the landlord followed up on this.
  14. It is of some concern that the landlord replied to the resident’s employer and MP but failed to respond to her about what action it was taking. This included information about it writing to neighbour 1 and trying to rehouse him. Crucially there is no evidence it told the resident this specific information directly. Although the MP and employer had the opportunity to pass this information on there was no guarantee of this. Its response to third parties and not to her caused her to feel like she was not being taken seriously and the landlord was choosing when and to who it should reply. This was not in accordance with its ASB policy.
  15. The landlord’s Procedure for Dealing with Reports of ASB states the best support is to “deal with complaint quickly and efficiently and keep them informed at all stages.” As shown previously in this report it failed to deal with the resident’s reports quickly or efficiently and failed to keep her informed. It therefore failed to offer the “best support” it could to her.
  16. The landlord’s Procedure for Dealing with Reports of ASB states other examples of support the landlord could offer includes referrals to specialist support services, victim support or advice from the police. There is no evidence it considered or offered any of these things to the resident or her partner from her first report of alleged ASB on 23 July 2018 to the last on 26 June 2020. In doing so it failed in its “commitment to supporting victims” as its ASB policy states.
  17. The landlord’s ASB procedure states it must complete a vulnerable victim’s risk assessment for every opened ASB case to consider any vulnerabilities or health issues. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord completed this on any of the resident’s reports of ASB on 23 July 2018, 9 March 2019, 10 April 2019, 19 May 2020, or 26 June 2020. In her ASB log the resident reported her partner had suffered health issues on 29 April 2019 as part of the alleged ASB. A victim’s risk assessment following the report of alleged ASB on 19 May 2020 may have captured this.
  18. In all circumstances the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had considered any potential vulnerability for the resident or her partner. It should have referred the resident and her partner for victim support and completed risk assessments each time the resident reported ASB to it.
  19. The landlord’s complaint responses of 9 March 2022 and 5 January 2023 acknowledged the resident’s complaint was about:
    1. How it handled the alleged ASB she had reported.
    2. How it communicated with her about the ASB case.
    3. That it had not supported her whilst she had reported ASB
  20. The landlord’s responses of 9 March 2022 and 5 January 2023 were insufficient in addressing the complaint points it had earlier acknowledged. The only information the landlord provided was that its Community Safety Officer had been the resident’s contact up to March 2021 and it informed her in November 2020 neighbour 1 was moving out. It failed to fully assess its approach to the reported ASB in line with its relevant policies to determine if it had taken the correct approach. In failing to do so it did not have an accurate assessment of the action it took. Therefore, its decision that compensation was “not appropriate” was flawed as it did not have sufficient information to make this decision.

Summary.

  1. In summary there have been serious failings by the landlord in the way in which it responded to the resident’s reports of alleged ASB. It failed to act in accordance with its policy as follows:
    1. It failed to respond to three of the resident’s reports within timescale. It responded to two reports in timescale but did so ineffectively.
    2. It failed to respond to reports of harassment or raise an ASB case about neighbour 2.
    3. It failed to report an ASB incident to the police when there was evidence of criminal activity.
    4. It failed to communicate sufficiently with the resident, did not obtain further information from her, create an action plan, or keep her suitably informed about what resolution it was attempting.
    5. It failed to consider support to the resident or her partner or complete victim risk assessments at any point.
  2. As such the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration and has awarded compensation of £800. This is due to the landlord’s failures noted above accumulating over a significant amount of time, it failing to put things right and learn from outcomes. It tolerated ASB, did not take effective or early action and did not support the resident as a victim, in line with its ASB Policy statement. Considerable detriment was caused to the resident and her partner including stress, worry, anxiety and inconvenience through their time in the property. This culminated in the resident and her partner selling the property in 2022 as they could “no longer be reminded of living there”.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy states it “values complaints and believes they are a positive way to learn and improve.”
  2. The landlord’s Formal Complaints Procedure has a three-stage complaint process, stage 1, stage 2, and a complaints panel.
    1. The responsible investigating officer will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints in 3 working days providing a timescale for resolution and remain in regular liaison with the complainant.
    2. It will respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 15 working days unless it agrees an extension with the resident otherwise.
    3. It states a complainant can escalate their complaint to the Ombudsman after the outcome of a complaints panel or at an earlier stage if the complaint is closed in writing by a director.
  3. The resident raised her initial complaint on 4 March 2021. After logging the complaint on 23 March 2021, the landlord failed to contact the resident again about the complaint. In doing so the investigating officer failed to acknowledge her complaint in 3 working days and it failed to provide a response in 15 working days, in accordance with its Formal Complaints Procedure.
  4. The resident chased the landlord’s response to her complaint, and it is uncertain if it would have responded had she not done this. It provided her with its stage 1 complaint response on 9 March 2022. This was equivalent to 258 working days, far exceeding the timescale in its policy of 15 working days. The delay caused uncertainty, frustration and distress to the resident and reinforced her belief the landlord was not listening to her.
  5. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord did not fully address the resident’s concerns that it had not supported her between July 2018 and February 2021 when she reported alleged ASB. It only apologised for not responding to her complaint in March 2021 and her difficulty in contacting it in April 2021. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord investigated the support it offered to the resident and as such its stage 1 complaint response was insufficient and caused uncertainty and distress to the resident. The landlord failed to put things right as quickly as possible as it states it will do under the ‘Customer complaints policy’ on its website.
  6. This Service wrote to the landlord on 15 August 2022 about providing the resident with a further response to her about lack of support and request for compensation. It initially told this Service on 18 August 2022 it would provide a further stage 1 complaint response to the resident. On 14 September 2022 it wrote to the resident informing her it acknowledged its failings, but it did not feel a further response was required. This was unreasonable as the landlord failed to respond to the specific issues raised by the resident and she was unable to escalate her complaint as it provided no escalation rights information to her. This caused her further distress and inconvenience.
  7. This Service informed the landlord on 5 December 2022 the resident wished to escalate her complaint still and asked it to reply by 5 January 2023 which it duly did. However, in accepting the resident’s escalation request on 5 December 2022 it failed to acknowledge her complaint in 3 working days in accordance with its Formal Complaints Procedure.
  8. In its stage 2 complaint response it said its service had fallen below expected standards, but it is unclear what it was referring to. Its response referred only to its responses of 9 March and 14 September 2022, where it had not fully addressed the resident’s complaint including supporting her when she reported alleged ASB. There is no further evidence to suggest it investigated the support it offered to the resident between July 2018 and February 2021. The complaint response was therefore insufficient and failed to address all points raised. Its decision to refuse an award of compensation was also based only on its response of 9 March and 14 September 2022 so was flawed.
  9. The landlord’s Complaints Policy states a director will assess an escalation at stage one to see if there are “grounds to proceed.” There is no evidence of the landlord reviewing the complaint when it was aware of the resident’s escalation request. Furthermore, the Complaints Policy states a director must close a complaint in writing before the resident can further escalate a complaint. There is no evidence of the landlord doing this in its stage two complaint response. It had two opportunities to review its response and find a different outcome but failed to take them, which was not in accordance with its Complaints Policy.
  10. The landlord should have completed a full investigation of the residents’ concerns at each stage of the complaints process and made an informed decision on the outcome. Its failure to do so created ineffective complaint responses that were incomprehensive and resulted in distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  11. In summary the landlord was delayed in providing its stage one complaint response to the resident prolonging the concerns for her, causing her further inconvenience and distress. It failed to recognise its delay at stage one and failed to offer proportionate compensation. The resident suffered barriers in attempting to escalate her complaint and was unable to contact the landlord causing further frustration and inconvenience to her. It was ineffective for the landlord not to investigate the concerns raised by the resident about the reported lack of support it offered her, which suggests it was not willing to take appropriate action and learn from complaints.
  12. The Ombudsman expects landlords to identify and respond to all issues raised as part of a complaints process as otherwise they will fail to resolve issues and identify wider learning. This also results in a deterioration in the landlord/tenant relationship.
  13. A landlords complaint process enables them to learn from issues and identify trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to its own complaints policy in its stage one and two complaint response time and its communication with the resident. A determination of maladministration has therefore been determined. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures, £400 compensation has been ordered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where maladministration has occurred over a protracted period with moderate impact to the resident throughout that period.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of alleged ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. A senior member of staff to write an apology to the resident for the failures in its service.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £1200 compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
      1. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient and unreasonable response to her reports of alleged ASB.
      2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delays and unreasonable complaint handling.
  2. The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 8 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Review its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and identify points of learning on how it can improve its response to ASB and victim support. The findings should be shared with the Ombudsman, also within 8 weeks.
    2. Review its handling of the resident’s complaints and identify points of learning on how it can improve its complaint handling and reduce delays. The findings should be shared with the Ombudsman, also within 8 weeks.