Onward Homes Limited (202222960)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222960

Onward Homes Limited

30 November 2023 (amended at review)

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:
1. Handling of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a former assured tenant of the landlord. The property was a 2 bedroom house.
In June 2021 the landlord received a report about the resident from a neighbour about inappropriate behaviour. When the landlord contacted her about the allegations, she raised a counter allegation about the neighbour. She said she had called the police after being threatened by the neighbour in person and on social media.
The landlord discussed the allegations with the police and decided that mediation was the best way to resolve the dispute. The resident and her neighbour agreed to mediation on 28 June 2021 which was carried out on 13 July 2021.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 24 May 2022 regarding the landlord’s response to her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB). The resident highlighted the impact the situation had on her health, felt that she was not safe in her home, and that her neighbour had not been held accountable for their actions.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 July 2022. It apologised for a delay which it attributed to closing the complaint in error. It did not uphold the complaint on the basis that mediation had resolved the ASB and that allegations about posts on social media were outside of its control. It offered the resident £50 in compensation for its complaint handling.
On 7 July 2022, the resident attempted to escalate her complaint. She said:
1. She did not agree with the amount of compensation offered.
2. The landlord had not considered the threats of violence.
3. The mediation was not an appropriate way to close the case.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 11 July 2022. She said that she did not believe the landlord had followed its own procedures. She said:
1. She was not interviewed by an officer as a complainant.
2. There was no risk assessment completed with her.
3. All communication by the landlord had been by email.
4. She was never offered an action plan or asked about her preferred outcome.
5. She was refused face to face mediation by the landlord when she asked for it.
6. She felt pressured into mediation, even though she doubted its effectiveness.
The resident ended her tenancy and moved out of the property on 22 October 2022. She told the landlord that the carpets and flooring were less than a year old and sought compensation for these and the costs of moving to a new home.
In its stage 2 response to the resident on 30 November 2022, the landlord did not uphold the complaint. It said:
1. The mediation done in 2021 resolved the ASB.
2. The ASB case was closed in October 2021 following the mediation.
3. There had been no evidence to prove any allegations of new incidents after the case was closed.
4. The last reported incident was 23 August 2022 and was about her neighbour staring at her and explained that this is not actionable ASB.
5. The landlord said that it had responded to all reports of ASB.
The resident remained unhappy with the response from the landlord and the amount of compensation offered. She brought her concerns to the Ombudsman in February 2023.
The landlord has reviewed its complaint handling whilst preparing its file for the Ombudsman’s investigation. The landlord recognised that there was a delay in its handling of the stage 2 complaint and on 17 July 2023 offered an additional £100 in compensation to the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB; our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against neighbours.
During the complaint journey, the resident told the landlord about the impact of ASB on her mental health. The Ombudsman does not dispute this; however, we are unable to make a determination about the causal link between the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB and the resident’s mental health. We will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s mental health is more appropriate for the courts and the resident may wish to pursue this in a legal setting.
The resident raised a concern to the Service regarding a noise report she made in April 2020. She was encouraged to evidence the noise using a noise app which the landlord did not review until December 2020. It decided that as the recordings were around 5 months old it could no longer act on them. It has not reviewed this issue in its internal complaint procedures, and it was not raised at any other point in the complaint process prior to this being made to the Ombudsman. In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme this cannot be considered as part of this investigation as it had not been brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period.
The resident raised concerns about a discrepancy in the end date given by the landlord for her tenancy. The Service has contacted the landlord to help resolve the dispute outside of this investigation. The landlord has not been given the opportunity to investigate this through its own internal complaint procedures, so in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme cannot be considered as part of this investigation.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s policy at the time defined ASB as:
1. conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person;
2. conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or;
3. conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The landlord has published guidance to support their policy and provides examples of issues and activities that they do not treat as ASB. It says that low level disagreements between neighbours where there is no breach of tenancy will usually not be considered ASB. However, it has a specialist team that can offer mediation and other services to help customers resolve these issues.
The tenancy agreement says tenants must not do anything that causes or is likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to other residents. It provides a list of examples that could be considered ASB. This includes playing loud music and behaving in an abusive, aggressive, threatening, or intimidating way.
The landlord’s complaint policy shows it operates a two-stage complaint process. Complaint responses are sent to residents within 10 and 20 working days at stage 1 and 2 of the process in that order.

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

The landlord’s policy sets out how it will investigate ASB. It sets out that it will ensure that a full, thorough, and well communicated investigation had been completed. The landlord’s guidance document details its approach to antisocial behaviour and says it will:
1. investigate all reports of ASB;
2. maintain regular contact with witnesses using a tailored action plan;
3. support neighbours to resolve ASB by taking part in face to face restorative practice or mediation;
4. seek reconciliation in instances of neighbour disputes as early intervention to prevent problems escalating;
5. set expectations with the resident by writing an action plan;
6. ensure a risk assessment of complaints during the initial investigation.
The evidence provided by the landlord shows that it considered this ASB case to be a low level disagreement between neighbours. It was unable to evidence a breach of tenancy and made an offer of mediation. Both parties were told what this meant and how it may resolve the case and agreed to take part. These actions were in line with the landlord’s ASB policy and what the Ombudsman would consider good practice.
The landlord referred the mediation to a third party provider, who conducted shuttle mediation on 13 July 2021. This was around 1 month after the resident’s counter allegation. The recommendations from the mediation were:
1. The neighbour agreed to keep a diary of new incidents.
2. There was to be no contact between both residents “until further notice”.
3. The mediator would conduct fortnightly monitoring.
4. Both parties were to stop speaking to other neighbours or involving third parties in the dispute.
5. The neighbour agreed to stop posting messages about the resident on social media.
6. The landlord to confirm that the neighbour had taken relevant posts down from their social media account.
The resident frequently asked for face to face mediation, but the landlord felt that there was a risk of conflict if they did. While the landlord did explain the rationale for not wanting to conduct a face-to-face meeting, its explanation of risk was at odds with the situation at the time and also with the provisions of its ASB policy. Further, it was unreasonable for it not to consider what actions it could take to minimise any risks to the resident (or the neighbour) to ensure it complied with the provisions of its ASB policy in its handling of the resident’s reports by conducting a risk assessment.
The mediator kept good communication with all parties and had continued reviews to monitor its success over a period of 3 months. There was a clear agreement made and the mediator informed the landlord that the resident was happy that there were no new incidents.
At the end of mediation, the landlord recorded that it had made a significant improvement. It wrote in its records that the neighbour had apologised for making inappropriate comments on social media, which was a significant issue in the mediation. The resident, however, stated that she was not given an apology and emailed the landlord on 7 October 2021 to say that she felt that the neighbour had not been held accountable for their actions. The landlord should have made it clear that the neighbour apologised.
The landlord also advised the resident about making a referral to the police. However, at that stage it failed to properly consider or explain to the resident whether the social media posts may have constituted ASB, and whether that ASB needed to be managed via its internal policies.
The landlord provided a detailed response to the resident on 23 November 2021. It gave her a description of what mediation is and said it was satisfied that mediation was successful in deescalating the issues between her and the neighbour. It told the resident that the mediator cannot force someone to write an apology to her and informed her that the case was closed.
The bulk of the resident’s complaint about her neighbour related to their posts on social media. The landlord rightly advised these were outside of the scope of its investigation and directed her to the Malicious Communications Act 1998. This implied that it believed the messages posted on social media may be criminal offences to be investigated by the police. If the landlord had been clear in this regard, it would have prevented any unnecessary confusion for the resident.
The resident reported threats of violence in person that appear to have been dismissed as unsubstantiated by the landlord. There was a reliance on the resident to provide evidence and the Service has seen no wider investigation by the landlord. The landlord should have conducted a proper interview with the resident and made it clear in an action plan how it could investigate the reports.
The decision to pursue mediation was a reasonable means to resolve this dispute based on the evidence available to the landlord. However, the Service has not seen evidence of complainant, or alleged perpetrator interviews, or an action plan taking place that may have started other avenues of investigation and eased the concerns reported by the resident.
The landlord told the resident that it could not investigate incidents without evidence. The Service has not seen any evidence of any other proactive investigation into the allegations of abuse raised by the resident.
Once the case was closed the resident repeatedly told the landlord that she did not feel safe in her home. She gave no evidence of new incidents but said that she felt intimidated by her neighbour. No investigation was done, or interview conducted regarding these reports which is not good practice. In August 2022 she chose to end her tenancy giving this as the reason.
The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports about ASB. The landlord did not conduct formal interviews with both parties, and this caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Had there been a clear action plan from the outset she would have had a greater understanding of the landlord’s remit and could have sought independent legal advice regarding her allegations about malicious communications.
The landlord should have also considered the impact these incidents had on the resident. She repeatedly told them how she felt unsafe, and she disagreed with the action taken regarding her reports. Had there been a risk assessment it could have considered if referrals to other agencies (such as victim support) would have helped to reduce the impact the ASB had on her.
The Ombudsman has determined that compensation of £300 should be provided by the landlord for failing to follow its policy and procedure and for the distress and inconvenience it had on the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged that the resident’s complaint on 24 May 2022 was not investigated until 6 July 2022.
It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it complies with the timeframes set out in its policy. Failure to do so was unfair to the resident and delayed the outcome, which could have an impact on the overall landlord tenant relationship.
The landlord said that they incorrectly closed the initial complaint. This caused an avoidable delay. It is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that there are procedures in place so that complaints are not left unanswered.
The landlord acknowledged its failing and offered the resident £50 in recognition of this. This was in line with its own policies and procedures, and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance due to the short nature of the delay, and the minimal detriment caused to the resident.
The stage 2 response was also not recorded correctly. The resident first attempted to escalate her complaint on 7 July 2022 and the landlord did not provide its final response until 30 November 2022. Its records show that it conducted a detailed investigation into her complaint before sending the final response but did not recognise the delay until it reviewed its complaint handling in preparation for this investigation.
It is noted that following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord revised its offer of compensation on 17 July 2023 and increased this to £150. This was on reflection of delays in handling the residents complaint. The Service accepts that the landlord recognised its failings and made an attempt to put things right. However, it failed to address the detriment to the resident. The offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation, and this was offered a significant time after the complaints process was exhausted. Additionally, it was prompted by the Service’s intention to investigate the complaint. This should have been identified at the time of the complaints process.
The resident took considerable time and trouble chasing the outcome of her complaint over what was around 5 months. She also made requests to speak directly to the investigating officer, which were not responded to by the landlord.
The landlord’s policy considers financial compensation up to £100 for poor complaint handling. It also considers compensation for higher amounts dependent on the impact on the resident. The offer of £150 compensation is reflective of the lowest end of the landlord’s policy.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and the offer of redress was insufficient in this case. We determine that additional compensation of £150 should be provided by the landlord

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of antisocial behaviour;
2. maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

Within four weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident, and a copy to the Ombudsman.
2. Pay the resident £600 in compensation. It can deduct any amount it has already paid from the £150 previously awarded. This comprises of:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused in handling reports of ASB
  2. £300 for its failings in its complaint handling
Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident to discuss any outstanding matters in relation to her tenancy end date.