MHS Homes Ltd (202220070)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220070

MHS Homes Ltd

17 January 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of allegations of antisocial behaviour (ASB) made against the resident.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was an assured shorthold supported living tenant of the landlord at the property since November 2021. The property is a 2-bedroom first floor flat within a supported living development which has a communal lounge. The landlord confirmed it did not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The landlord had received multiple reports from neighbours about the behaviour of the resident and 2 other neighbours between July 2022 and September 2022. The complaints included the way the resident had spoken to neighbours in the communal lounge, intimidating behaviour by the resident when others entered the communal lounge and the resident excluding some neighbours from events that were happening in the scheme, which included a tea club.
The landlord discussed the alleged behaviour with the resident in person on 12 September 2022. During the discussion, the landlord also told the resident a further 2 reports had been received that day about the resident using inappropriate language about another neighbour in the communal lounge. The resident disputed the accusations. The landlord told the resident that a warning letter would be sent shortly. It also told the resident that if it received further reports, it may take legal action. The landlord sent a tenancy breach warning letter to the resident on the same day. The letter said the landlord had received reports about the resident including bullying, harassment, and intimidating behaviour. It said the resident had breached the terms of her tenancy agreement. It also asked the resident to refrain from the alleged behaviour and said it would take legal action if it received any further reports.
On 20 September 2022, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about the landlord’s handling of the allegations of ASB and the warning letter it had sent. The resident said she denied all the allegations made and considered them to be malicious. The resident said the allegations by the neighbours had been accepted as fact without a meaningful investigation. The resident stated she wanted the warning letter retracted from her records and a written apology. If this was not possible, she asked for a full explanation of the steps taken to verify the accuracy of the allegations. She also asked for assurance on further safeguards the landlord had adopted, regarding the effect the letter had on her. She also said the accusations had contributed to a deterioration of her mental health and that she had experienced suicidal thoughts.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 4 October 2022. It said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said it was difficult to verify the accuracy of the accusations but they had been taken into account due to the volume of them. It said the warning letter was not personal but was consistently applied to the 3 residents the reports related to. It said the accusations had been examined by its Assistant Customer Team manager who was independent of the Support Housing Service, and an assessment was made against the criteria within the tenancy agreement. It also said the wording of “anti social” in the letter was unfortunate. On 5 October 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed her starter tenancy would be extended for 6 months due to rent arrears on her account and the reports of ASB.
The resident escalated her complaint on 10 October 2022. She said she did not believe her concerns had been addressed, she was not guilty of the ASB allegations, she was concerned about future allegations and felt unwelcome in the building. The resident said the landlord had believed the ASB allegations as fact. She also stated that in verbal conversations the term section 21 had been mentioned and this had caused her alarm and distress. The resident said other neighbours from the scheme had written to the landlord in support of her. The resident was also unhappy with the delay in the landlord acknowledging her complaint. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on the same day.
The landlord issued its final response on 1 November 2022. It said the stage 1 complaint process had dealt with the matter fairly and objectively. In regard to the allegations of ASB, it said the scheme manager had explained on 12 September 2022 that the allegations were against 3 residents and not one specific individual. It said the scheme manager had explained to the resident that the process at that stage would not impact the resident’s tenancy. The landlord acknowledged it had failed to follow its complaints policy when responding to the resident’s complaints. It said it had failed to acknowledge the stage 1 complaint or respond to the resident at stage 2 within its timeframes. The resident remained dissatisfied with the response from the landlord and contacted this Service in November 2022 to request an investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

In her submissions to the Ombudsman, the resident has referred to further issues which do not relate to the complaint under investigation. The Ombudsman cannot consider the complaints about the application for housing benefit, the landlord’s request that the resident remove turf or the landlord’s decision not to offer the resident a secure tenancy. This is because these complaints were not raised through the landlord’s internal complaints process.
In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
In her complaint, the resident referred to the situation impacting upon her health. While this Service is able to assess the response the landlord provided, and any overall distress or inconvenience this may have caused, it is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on the resident’s health and wellbeing. However, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of allegations of antisocial behaviour (ASB) made against the resident.

The purpose of this investigation was not to establish if ASB had occurred, or which party was responsible. It was for the Ombudsman to determine whether, in response to reports of ASB, the landlord responded in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, a resident must not do anything which alarms or causes distress to anyone near their home. Residents must also not harass anyone near their home or near the other homes owned by the landlord.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the starter period of the tenancy was for 12 months. If during the starter period the landlord believed a resident could not manage the tenancy or if a resident breached the terms of the tenancy, the landlord may extend the starter period by up to 6 months.
The landlord’s ASB policy includes harassment and defines this as a personalised form of ASB aimed at a particular person. It says harassment can take a variety of forms and it is unwanted behaviour that has the effect of violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, humiliating, or offensive environment. The ASB policy stated that:
1. The landlord will adopt a supportive approach when dealing with victims, witnesses, and alleged perpetrators, and will be flexible in its approach to managing incidents.
2. All reports of ASB will be treated in the strictest confidence and the identity of the complainant will not be revealed without their consent.
3. The landlord will not always carry out a full investigation for one off instances. It would expect residents to try and resolve most problems themselves first by speaking to their neighbour.
4. The landlord will always try to resolve matters amicably by talking to those concerned and by offering suitable advice and / or mediation.
5. Where necessary, the landlord will use legal action options such as Acceptable Behaviour Agreements (ABA), injunctions, evictions, and absolute ground for possession.
6. The focus will be to try a work with the perpetrators and complainants to resolve the situation before resorting to legal action.
When ASB is reported, it is necessary for the landlord to respond in accordance with its ASB policies and deal with reports in a proportionate and appropriate manner. The landlord must consider its obligation as a landlord to treat allegations from all its residents in a consistent and evidence-led way.
The landlords records stated that complaints had been received from 4 of the resident’s neighbours in July 2022 about the resident’s behaviour in the communal areas of the building. This included the way other neighbours had been spoken about in the lounge, intimidating behaviour as and when others entered the lounge, and excluding other neighbours from events that happened at the scheme. The landlord noted that during its investigations, it received complaints from neighbours at 12 different properties. It was also noted that the complaints referred to the behaviour of a group of 3 including the resident.
Due to the number of complaints received about the resident’s behaviour, it was reasonable for the landlord to investigate and take action. The landlord demonstrated that it took steps to discuss the allegations with the resident as part of the investigation on 12 September 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to discuss the allegations with the resident. This is because landlords are expected to provide residents with a reasonable opportunity to respond to any allegations, which it should then give due consideration to before making an informed decision about how best to proceed.
The landlord informed the resident during the conversation that a tenancy warning letter would be issued as a result of its investigations. In this case, the landlord had made efforts to gather evidence, by recording evidence from those directly involved. Its non-legal action of a tenancy warning on the basis of the available evidence was a satisfactory approach to take. It also demonstrated that it had managed the resident’s expectations by informing her of its next steps within the letter and during the discussion on 12 September 2022.
To be clear, the Ombudsman is not making a statement that the alleged ASB of the resident did or did not take place, as this is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to determine. Rather, the Ombudsman is acknowledging that, given that allegations made were supported by a number of witnesses, it was therefore not unreasonable for the landlord to issue a tenancy warning letter to the resident. This was in line with its policies and procedures.
It was noted during this investigation that part of the log of complaints from neighbours, provided by the landlord to this Service, did not include times and dates of when the complaints were received. This demonstrated poor record keeping by the landlord. In cases of ASB, as with all elements of a landlord’s service delivery, it is important for a landlord to record the date and times of incidents, in order to be able to provide a robust investigation.
The landlord did demonstrate that it had put a process into place to record further instances of ASB. In its internal notes, it stated that it had told the resident on 16 September 2022 that all residents had been provided with diary sheets to record any further ASB in order for these to be investigated accordingly. This action was appropriate and in line with good practice.
The resident stated in her complaint that the landlord had suspended her transfer from a starter tenancy to an assured tenancy due to the allegations of ASB. The landlord sent the resident a letter on 5 October 2022 which said that the starter tenancy had been extended for a further 6 months due to the rent arrears and the previous reports of ASB. While it was acknowledged that this would have been distressing for the resident, the terms of the tenancy agreement allowed the landlord to extend this starter period. The landlord had identified a potential breach of tenancy and issued a warning letter, therefore, this was a reasonable course of action.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response that its wording of the tenancy breach warning letter in referring to the resident’s behaviour as anti social was “unfortunate.” It said the letter related to the harassment element of ASB only. The landlord categorising the alleged behaviour of the resident as anti social was in line with its definition of ASB set out in its ASB policy. However, it was noted that the landlord having understood the impact of the wording of the letter on the resident, had taken learning from this. The landlord said in its final response that it would be looking at considering the wording and delivery of warning letters in the future, to take into consideration the impact upon a resident’s mental health.
In conclusion, overall, the landlord had taken actions in line with its policy and procedures when handling the allegations of ASB made against the resident. It was proportionate for the landlord to discuss the concerns with the resident and issue a warning letter. However, there was evidence of a poor standard of record keeping during the investigation. While this would not have impacted upon the warning letter being issued, the landlord should have ensured all complaint statements were recorded and dated in order to retain robust records. The landlord demonstrated that it had learnt from its investigation and had issued all residents of the scheme with diary sheets to complete when reporting ASB going forward. It also showed it had taken into consideration the impact of the wording of the letter in this case. Therefore, this Service has found no evidence of maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of allegations of ASB made against the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time of the complaint, stated that it would formally acknowledge a complaint within one working day. It said it aimed to resolve all stage one complaints within 7 working days and all final stage complaints within 15 working days. If it needed longer, the resident would be informed of this.
The Complaint Handling Code sets out the Ombudsman’s requirements for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code also states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint and a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation is considered for delay and distress based on the level of its responsibility for the inconvenience, and the impact on a resident. It says that for instances where a complaint has been upheld, but no significant distress has been caused, a maximum of £50 can be offered.
The resident said in her complaint escalation that she had not received an acknowledgement of her complaint made on 23 September 2022, until 27 September 2022 after she had called the landlord to follow up. The landlord here had failed to follow its policy at the time which said an acknowledgement would be provided within 1 day. The stage 1 complaint was also received after 10 working days, which was 3 days after the timeframe in the landlord’s policy. The landlord said in its final response that it had failed to acknowledge and respond to the complaint within its timescales.
The landlord also acknowledged that it had not kept to its timescales in responding to the resident at stage 2 of the complaint. This final response was received after 16 working days. Although the delay in providing the complaint response was minimal, the lack of initial acknowledgement of the stage 1 complaint, until the resident had followed up, caused her time and trouble.
While the landlord acknowledged the delays in responding in its final response and said that this may have been due to staffing and other internal factors, it did not offer any redress to the resident. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to had offered an apology to the resident for the delay in addition to upholding this part of her complaint.
In her initial complaint, the resident said she was advised that the landlord would refer her to its own mental health team, but she had not received a follow up on this. The landlord’s complaint responses did not address this to offer an explanation or update. This was a failure to fully address all parts of the resident’s complaint. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to confirm if a referral had been made. If a referral was not possible, the landlord should have signposted or referred the resident to an appropriate service.
In summary, the landlord’s complaint process did not answer all of the complaint and took longer than the timescales set out in its complaints policy. It was noted that the landlord did acknowledge its failure to respond to the resident within its timescales and overall its response times were reasonable. However, it did not offer to put this right for the resident. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £50 to account for the time and trouble caused to the resident in regard to the complaint delay and the complaint response not addressing all points of the complaint. This has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy for instances in which a complaint has been upheld and compensation acknowledges the landlord’s responsibility.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of allegations of antisocial behaviour (ASB) made against the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise to the resident, for the complaint handing failings identified in this report.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation in relation to the service failures in its complaint handling. Compensation is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.