Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202110637)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110637

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

28 November 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) about a neighbour, following issue of tenancy warnings.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. The resident is an older person and has a diagnosis of anxiety and depression. Adjacent to the property, is an older person’s housing scheme, which is owned by the landlord. The resident has access to the landlord’s staff and other landlord services operating from the housing scheme, which includes laundry facilities and social activities.
The landlord sent 2 warning letters to the resident in January 2021, about his behaviour.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 4 February 2021. The resident disagreed that he had been abusive to staff, contractors, and other residents and suggested that it was he who was the victim of abuse from his neighbours. The resident said that the landlord was aware he had been assaulted in the past but had taken no action. The resident claimed that a member of the landlord’s staff did not like him and was trying to get him evicted. This was playing on the resident’s mind and made him feel ill.
The landlord provided the stage 1 response on 12 March 2021. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The landlord:
1. Said there was no evidence that its member of staff had acted inappropriately or unprofessionally. While the correct procedures had been followed, a manager would meet with the resident and its member of staff to agree a way forward.
2. Commented that the resident’s report about the assault was passed to its ASB team to investigate. Due to the police being involved, it had spoken to the perpetrator and had told them to stay away from the resident and not to aggravate the situation. As there was no conviction from the police and no further incidents were reported, the case was taken no further.
3. Reiterated its previous advice, that the resident should report future concerns to its housing team. This would allow the correct procedure to be followed and allow it to investigate further.
4. Apologised for its delay in providing the stage 1 response. It offered £20 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience and frustration this had caused.
After further contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 16 March 2022. The Ombudsman asked it to investigate the resident’s complaint about accusations made by the landlord, concerning the resident’s behaviour. The landlord told the Ombudsman that it had already issued a stage 1 response about this on 12 March 2022. The complaint was now “time barred” (from escalation to stage 2).
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 5 April 2022, after further contact from the resident. The resident said he had tried to report new incidents of ASB to the landlord’s housing manager but was told to report them to the landlord’s ASB team instead. He had tried to raise a complaint about this but had received no response from the landlord. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide the resident with a written stage 1 complaint response, in respect of the landlord’s handling of ASB regarding a neighbour.
The landlord told the Ombudsman on 7 April 2022, that the complaint fell outside the scope of its complaint process. After the resident contacted the Ombudsman again on 24 May 2022, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to issue a stage 1 complaint response, or a final response outlining its reason for not accepting the resident’s complaint.
The landlord issued the final response letter on 24 May 2022. The landlord:
1. Apologised for the delay in providing its final written response, which was an oversight on its part. It offered to raise this as a separate complaint if the resident wished.
2. Said that it was only able to consider a failure to adhere to the ASB procedure under its complaints process. It was satisfied that it had taken steps in line with its expected processes.
3. Explained that it was unable to consider the resident’s ASB allegations as a complaint. It provided a copy of its complaints policy to highlight the policy exclusions.
4. Explained that for it to consider an ASB investigation, the resident must provide evidence of the alleged behaviour. No evidence had been provided, despite having opportunity to provide this on multiple occasions. The resident was encouraged to share any potential evidence with the landlord.
5. Mentioned previous discussions with the resident about his behaviour toward his neighbour, witnessed by the landlord. It was aware that the police were investigating allegations and counter allegations between the parties, which it was happy to assist with.
The resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman because he believed that the landlord was not taking his complaints and reports of ASB seriously.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB about a neighbour, following issue of tenancy warnings.

The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will work to prevent, and where possible, resolve cases of ASB in a robust and effective manner. Its aim is to ensure its residents and colleagues can enjoy a peaceful and safe environment in which to live, work and play. The landlord commits to tackling the causes of ASB and prevent incidents of ASB from arising and escalating; to work in partnership with other specialist agencies (such as the police); and to keep victims and witnesses informed.
It is recognised that the situation with the resident’s neighbour was both distressing and unpleasant for the resident. The resident has described being physically assaulted by his neighbour in 2019, and verbally assaulted by the same neighbour at a coffee morning in March 2022. The resident has stated that the landlord had not acted upon his reports. As a result, the resident said he no longer felt able to participate in social activities run from the scheme or use the laundry facilities.
The resident made 2 separate complaints in February 2021 and April 2022. For completeness the Service has decided to consider both complaints as part of this investigation report.

The resident’s complaint of 4 February 2021

The resident complained to the landlord after receiving warning letters about his behaviour. It is understandable that the resident might feel that the landlord was treating him differently, if he believed it had not responded to historical reports of ASB made about his neighbour.
The landlord endeavoured to explain the steps that it had taken in relation to the assault in 2019. Its response demonstrated that it had worked with partners and had addressed the matter with the neighbour. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have closed the case based on the outcome of the police investigation, and in view of there being no further incidents. However, it should have kept the resident informed, in line with its policy. The Ombudsman has not been able to verify the landlord’s actions based on the evidence provided. The resident has told the Ombudsman that he received no feedback from the landlord at all. This was unreasonable and left the resident uncertain as to how the matter had been concluded.
The landlord demonstrated a willingness to support the resident in the event of future ASB incidents, by reminding the resident to report ASB to its housing team and providing relevant contact details.
It was positive that the landlord investigated claims about the professionalism of its member of staff. It was reassuring that a manager had committed to meet the resident and its member of staff to agree a way forward. This showed that the landlord was committed to restoring the tenant landlord relationship. However, the Ombudsman would have been more encouraged had the landlord provided the Service with a record of its investigation and subsequent meeting notes.

The resident’s complaint in April 2022

It was understandable that the landlord could not progress an ASB investigation if there was insufficient evidence. It was appropriate that its final stage response encouraged the resident to share any potential evidence with it. But it was surprising that the landlord told the resident to provide evidence to its housing manager, when according to the resident, the same housing manager had told the resident to report incidents to its ASB team. This would have been confusing for the resident. This suggests that its complaint handlers had not fully understood the resident’s complaint. This was unhelpful. The lack of clarity about how to raise reports of ASB was unfair to the resident and contributed to the resident’s overall frustration.
The landlord has told the Ombudsman that the resident always reported ASB incidents to the police in the first instance. The resident disputes that he did not provide any evidence to the landlord. The resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord failed to speak to witnesses from the coffee morning after names were provided to it. While this may be so, the Ombudsman understands that the police were leading on the investigation into the verbal assault at the coffee morning. It would have been unnecessary for the landlord to have re-interviewed witnesses, after the police had interviewed them. It is noted that the police were unable to substantiate what had happened due to conflicting witness statements. Several days after the coffee morning, there was a second incident involving the parties, which formed part of an ongoing police investigation. The landlord assisted the police by reviewing CCTV footage from the scheme and providing intelligence to support their investigation.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have based its next steps on the outcome of the police investigation. It has not been possible to determine based on fact, if the landlord was monitoring the progression of the police investigation, so it could consider an appropriate and proportionate course of action on conclusion. There was a clear disconnect between how the landlord responded to the resident’s new reports of ASB, and the resident’s perception of how the landlord should have responded. It is also of concern that there is no evidence that the landlord considered written representations from the resident’s doctor on 11 April 2022, asking the landlord to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities when assessing its plan to manage the ongoing situation with the neighbour. This was unreasonable.
The Ombudsman appreciates that this was a challenging case, not least helped by the lack of evidence to take decisive action. In view of the confusion over reporting lines and in recognising the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord should contact the resident to clarify the correct process for reporting ASB. Since it is in the interest of all parties for a resolution to be achieved, the landlord should consider revisiting this case if it has not already done so, to support the resident in finding a solution. This would be in keeping with its aims under its ASB policy.
Overall, there was a lack of clarity regarding the correct approach to report ASB, which was likely to have caused unnecessary confusion for the resident and hindered any ASB investigation. The landlord failed to adequately manage the resident’s expectations, who remained unclear on the landlord’s approach. This contributed to the resident’s perception that the landlord had not acted on his reports of ASB. It is unclear whether the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities when managing the situation with the neighbour. The detriment to the resident included continued worry, uncertainty, isolation from social activities, and a strong sense of being treated differently.
When considered cumulatively, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB about a neighbour, following issue of tenancy warnings.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy states that stage 1 complaints will be responded to in 10 working days and stage 2 complaints in 20 working days. The policy sets out the circumstances under which a matter will not be considered as a complaint. This includes complaints about ASB, and where the cause of the complaint occurred more than 6 months prior to the resident raising a formal complaint.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may remedy a complaint using compensation. In recognition of poor complaint handling, it will start by issuing an apology. For failure of service, and time and trouble, it will award up to £50 compensation for medium failings and up to £151 for high failings.
In relation to the resident’s complaint of 4 February 2021, the landlord provided the stage 1 complaint response 26 working days outside of its expected timescale under its policy. The landlord recognised this as a failing, apologised, and offered the resident £20 in recognition of inconvenience and frustration caused. This was in line with its complaints policy. The landlord considered its actions in relation to a historical ASB incident, despite the incident happening more than 6 months prior to the resident raising the complaint. This was of benefit to the resident and in doing so, the landlord showed reasonableness.
Considering the length of time that had passed, it was unsurprising that the landlord declined to escalate the complaint to stage 2, when the resident raised continued dissatisfaction 12 months later. It would have been clearer had this restriction been set out in its complaints policy at the time. However, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord has since clarified its position in its updated complaints policy. This is positive and promotes transparency.
It is not in dispute that the landlord did not provide the resident with a new stage 1 complaint or final response in a timely manner, after the resident attempted to raise a new complaint in April 2022. The landlord recognised this in its final response dated 24 May 2022. The landlord’s offer to raise a new complaint about this was fair.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that a landlord must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of its complaint’s procedure and must have clear and valid reasons for taking that course of action. The landlord’s decision not to investigate the new ASB incident as a complaint was in line with its policy. However, the Ombudsman suggests that the resident was also complaining about his experience of trying to report an ASB incident. The landlord should have investigated this aspect of the complaint and issued a stage 1 response. The landlord’s decision to rule the entire complaint outside the scope of its complaints policy was unreasonable and prevented the resident from reaching a timelier resolution.
The Ombudsman makes a final observation about the landlord’s final response letter. Despite stating that it was unable to consider ASB as a complaint, the landlord used its final response as an opportunity to reflect on the resident’s own behaviour. Given that the purpose of its communication was to explain why it would not accept the resident’s complaint, this was unnecessary. If the landlord felt that it needed to address the resident’s behaviour, it should have communicated this in a separate communication.
When considered cumulatively there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour about a neighbour, following issue of tenancy warnings.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
The landlord must pay compensation of £300 directly to the resident. This is reduced to £280 if the landlord has already paid the compensation, it previously offered. This compensation has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is broken down as follows:
1. £200 in compensation, in recognition of failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour about a neighbour, following issue of tenancy warnings.
2. £100 in compensation, in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble, caused by failures in complaint handling.
The landlord must:
1. Endeavour to meet with the resident to clarify the correct procedures for reporting ASB. If it has not already done so, the landlord may wish to use this opportunity to revisit the case and support the resident in finding a resolution. The landlord should take into consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and act accordingly.
2. Review the issues identified in this case and identify any learnings. Where learnings are identified, the landlord should commit to bringing improvements into its operations within 3 months of the date of its review. As a minimum, the landlord must consider how it can best manage resident expectation in ASB cases, where the landlord is not the lead partner.
The landlord must provide evidence to the Service that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.