Optivo (now Southern Housing) (202208179)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208179

Optivo (Now Southern Housing Group)

5 September 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 the landlord’s response to;

a. Reports of anti-social behaviour.

b. A walkway to the rear of the resident’s property being blocked.

c. This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling approaches.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is a two-bedroom house and the tenancy started in September 2000.
The landlord has stated to this Service that its records confirm that the resident has no known vulnerabilities. However, an undated risk assessment matrix completed with the resident during this case states that he is autistic and has OCD and a borderline personality disorder.
The resident reported to the landlord that he experienced anti-social behaviour (ASB) caused by three neighbours who all live in the locality of the property. For ease of reference, these neighbours are referred to as Neighbour A, Neighbour B and Neighbour C. During the timescales considered within this report, the landlord was also investigating counter-allegations of ASB against the resident.
The resident also raised concerns that he was not able to access the rear garden area of his property due to an access path being blocked.
In December 2022, the landlord completed a merger with Southern Housing and is now known as Southern Housing Group. The landlord’s policies and procedures referred to within this report were correct during the timescales outlined within the case and all events took place prior to the landlord’s merger.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that the resident first reported incidents of ASB on 7 July 2022 via a telephone call. Its records also show that the resident sent a text message to a member of the landlord’s staff on 9 July 2022 in which he gave further details of the ASB which included;

a. His neighbours were verbally abusive towards him.

b. He had been threatened with violence.

c. He had been accused of being a paedophile.

The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 July 2022 following a visit made to his property on 7 July 2022 where they discussed that he had put up boards in his front garden. The landlord’s letter asked the resident to remove the boards by 28 July 2022 when they would reinspect.
The landlord’s records show that it opened an ASB case file on its systems on 28 July 2022, following a call made to it by the resident the previous day as he had not received a response to his earlier text messages. It listed an action plan to investigate the alleged ASB which included;

a. It would send out incident diary sheets to the resident for him to complete with details of any further ASB incidents.

b. It would contact the resident every two weeks regarding his case.

c. It would arrange contact with the neighbours to discuss the reported ASB.

d. It would contact the resident via letter which was his preferred method of contact.

The landlord’s case notes state that the resident reported the following;

a. Neighbour A had threatened to attack him and had called him a pervert.

b. Neighbour B had threatened to petrol bomb his house and was singing songs to him mocking his country of origin.

It then carried out telephone interviews with two of the resident’s neighbours on 1 August 2022 and put the resident’s accusations to them, which they denied and counter allegations were made. The third neighbour could not be reached at that time.
The resident contacted this Service on 4 August 2022 and stated that he felt the landlord was not doing anything to address the ASB he was experiencing. He explained that a pathway to the rear of his property had been blocked off and he felt that the landlord had done this due to the malicious lies his neighbours had made about him.
This Service contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 4 August and on 8 August 2022; it confirmed that it would raise a formal complaint on his behalf. The landlord sent a letter to the resident confirming his complaint on 10 August 2022 and stated that it would provide him with a formal response by 26 August 2022.
On 11 August 2022, the landlord’s staff held an internal case conference where the resident’s complaint was discussed. The notes from this meeting state;

a. It had confirmed actions that it would take (with dates) in order to investigate the resident’s ASB reports.

b. It stated that that the resident was upset as he felt targeted by three separate neighbours and that the landlord was not listening to him.

c. It also listed required actions for its ASB team to take.

The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 August 2022 confirming that a visit with a surveyor would take place on 24 August 2022 to look at the garden areas of the property. The landlord’s staff would also view video footage that the resident had taken of the alleged ASB from his neighbours.
The landlord’s records show that in an internal email between its staff on 24 August 2022, it stated;

a. Its staff had attended the resident’s property that same day as previously arranged.

b. They had viewed a video recording made by the resident on 9 July 2022.

c. It was confirmed that within the video Neighbour 3 had called the resident a “dirty old man”.

d. In another of the resident’s videos taken on 30 May 2022 it was confirmed that there was an altercation between the resident and Neighbour 3. This video showed a disagreement between them about waste items outside. The resident stated to Neighbour 3 that they were “evil, a bully and nasty”. Neighbour 3 responded by saying the resident is a “pervert”.

e. Its staff had spoken to another local resident on 24 August 2022 who advised he had heard the resident being called a paedophile by a neighbour many times and it was not fair.

The landlord provided the resident with its stage one complaint response on 24 August 2022 in which it stated;

a. It was continuing to investigate the resident’s reports of ASB.

b. It asked the resident to provide evidence of any ongoing ASB including diary sheets and video evidence.

c. It encouraged the resident to report any incidents of harassment and victimisation to the police. It stated that “once the police concluded their investigation, were (sic) able to act on their findings”.

d. It did not outline whether it did or did not uphold the resident’s complaint.

e. It advised the resident that he could request a review of his complaint by completing a “request for review” form (which it included) by 9 September 2022.

On 5 September 2022, the resident completed a review panel request form in relation to his complaint and sent it to the landlord. The resident outlined on the form that he wanted the landlord to explain in full what action it had taken against his neighbours.
On 24 September 2022, the landlord sent a letter to the resident confirming that a panel review hearing would be held on 24 October 2022 via an online platform.
The landlord’s records show that it first contacted the local policing team about the reported ASB on 26 September 2022. It shared detailed information regarding the resident’s reports of ASB with the police via email on 30 September 2022 and also shared details of the counter-allegations made against the resident. A local PCSO replied and stated that they would be willing to arrange a joint visit to all parties with the landlord’s officers.
The landlord’s operatives attended the property on 26 September 2022 to remove the fence panel. Its records state that Neighbour C was very unhappy with them doing this so the work could not be completed. The resident called the landlord and stated that he was unhappy that his neighbour had interfered.
Following further contact with the resident, this Service contacted the landlord on 6 October 2022. The Ombudsman advised that the resident wished to attend the scheduled panel review meeting on 24 October 2022 via telephone rather than via an online platform. This Service contacted the landlord that same day and asked them to consider the resident’s request.
In an email between the landlord’s staff on 7 October 2022, a further visit was arranged for 13 October 2022 to remove a fence panel following the resident’s neighbour disputing its removal on 26 September 2022. It was also stated that its staff had reviewed video evidence provided by the resident which it felt did not evidence any ASB. It was continuing to receive counter-allegations regarding the resident’s behaviour and its investigations were continuing. The landlord’s staff had arranged to visit the area with the police on 13 October 2022 to discuss the ASB with all parties.
On 12 October 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident confirming that it had arranged for a review panel meeting regarding his complaint to take place on 24 October 2022. It stated that the meeting would be held via an online platform. The letter also confirmed that its repairs team had been booked to attend and remove a fence panel at the property on 24 September 2022.
The landlord’s staff attended the property on 13 October 2022 to remove a fence panel between his property and the neighbouring property. During the same visit, staff from the landlord’s housing team attended with its partners from the local police to carry out enquiries with the resident and his neighbours.
The landlord’s records state that video evidence provided by the resident was shown to the police officers and the officers stated that they felt all parties were aggravating the situation. It was suggested that all parties may need to be issued with behaviour contracts by the landlord and if that was not successful in resolving the matters, the police may consider taking action separately. The resident was advised that taking videos of his neighbours when they were not causing ASB was aggravating the situation and he stated that he made the videos to prove his neighbours were causing ASB. The resident was asked to report incidents to the police and he stated that he had not done so previously because he felt the police did not listen to him. The resident was also advised during this visit to remove items from his garden area.
The landlord held a review panel hearing regarding the resident’s complaint on 24 October 2022 as arranged. Three members of the landlord’s staff and a resident ambassador attended. From the evidence reviewed by this Service, it is confirmed that the resident did not attend although the reason for this is unknown.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 November 2022 to advise that during a further recent inspection, it was noted that his gardens were untidy due to panels and pieces of wood he had installed over the hedges. The resident was requested to remove these as soon as possible to bring his garden to a standard in line with the terms and conditions of his signed tenancy agreement.
On 4 November 2022, the landlord provided the resident with its stage two complaint response letter in which it stated;

a. It had held the review panel meeting on 24 October 2022 as agreed.

b. It had an open ASB case and was waiting for information from the local police following a visit to his neighbours on 13 October 2022.

c. It stated that it could not give a detailed update on what was discussed with each neighbour to address the ASB due to data protection issues.

d. It confirmed that it had removed a fence panel on 24 October 2022. It further stated that it had installed the fence panel in 2015 but could not locate any notes on its systems to confirm the reasons why it had been installed.

e. It confirmed that it partially upheld the resident’s complaint as it had not kept its promise to contact the resident every two weeks as agreed in its ASB action plan.

f. It had assigned a new staff member to his case who would contact him by 14 November 2022.

During November 2022, the resident’s ASB case was reassigned to another staff member and contact was made with the resident.
On 7 December 2022, a visit was made to the resident’s property during which the resident stated that he had not experienced any recent ASB and the situation was much better and quieter. He did however state that his neighbours made comments about him and were recording him. The resident was advised that footage had been viewed of him recording his neighbours when they passed his property. The landlord’s staff member advised that both parties were “trying to justify their own behaviour without taking any accountability”. It was explained that for any tenancy enforcement action to be taken, evidence would be required to support this. The staff member suggested that the path leading to the rear of the resident’s property could be redesigned and both the resident and Neighbour C were in agreement with this. The staff member advised that the works needed to be approved by a regional manager.
A survey of the area was completed on 17 January 2023 and on 1 February 2023 the landlord sent a text message to the resident to advise that the works had been approved. During March and April 2023, contractors attended the property to inspect the area and the landlord was waiting for quotes during this time.
The landlord’s records show that on 18 April 2023, it contacted the resident as his neighbour had reported that he had taken a sponge from their garden and would not return it. The resident informed the landlord that he would not return the sponge as he did not know it belonged to his neighbour. The landlord advised the resident that his behaviour was not helping the situation as it was trying to work towards a solution. The landlord stated that as the resident had not reported any further incidents of ASB, it would contact him again once it had an update from its contractors regarding the works to the access path.
On 26 May 2023, the landlord’s records show that it had received one quote from a contractor but two other quotes were required as per its procurement rules.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord’s ASB policy outlines how it will tackle ASB in its communities. It outlines the definition of hate crime which aligns with the UK Government’s definition.
The landlord’s ASB procedure provides a table in which it categorises low, medium and high types of ASB. It states that it will treat all incidents of verbal abuse, harassment and intimidation, threats of violence and threats to kill as “medium level” ASB issues. It also lists any incident of hate-related behaviour as high level ASB. It does not list within its ASB policy and procedure documents the timescales in which it will respond to the different types of ASB, however its website confirms that it will respond to all reports of racist, hate-related incidents and threats of violence within one working day.
Its ASB procedure outlines that upon completion of a risk assessment matrix for all residents experiencing ASB, it will respond to residents who score medium risk within two working days, and residents who score highly within one working day.
Its ASB procedure also describes how it will use a range of early intervention methods and options in ASB cases which include;

a. Acceptable behaviour agreements.

b. Good neighbour agreements.

c. Offering noise monitoring equipment and/or professional witnessing services.

d. Mediation referrals.

e. Support referrals for both parties.

The landlord’s complaints resolution policy outlines the following:

a. It will acknowledge stage one complaints within five working days.

b. It aims to respond fully to stage one complaints within ten working days.

c. At stage two (review) of its complaints process, residents can select one of the following options:

A review panel hearing including involved residents and its staff or;
A review panel hearing consisting only of its staff.
It also offers residents the opportunity to attend the review panel hearing themselves and will work with residents to arrange a mutually convenient date. It also states that this can delay the complaints process.

d. Following the review, the landlord will provide its response within 10 working days.

e. In “exceptional” cases, the landlord will defer the decision if further advice is needed, or if it needs to consult a specialist or take legal advice.

f. It will advise residents of any need to extend the response time.

The landlord’s compensation policy outlines that in cases where it has taken reasonable steps to resolve any failure in service, it will consider a discretionary payment. It outlines that it may offer this to recognise distress or inconvenience caused for example, taking repeated attempts to resolve an issue. Discretionary payments may be cash payments, gift vouchers or items such as flowers. It further states these payments are not admissions of liability.

The landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour

The landlord’s records show that the resident first reported threats to life, verbal abuse and being accused of being a paedophile by his neighbours in text messages he sent to the landlord on 7 and 9 July 2022. It is unclear if the landlord acknowledged the resident’s text messages on 7 and 9 July 2022. Whilst the landlord did open a new ASB case, it did not do so until 28 July 2022, after the resident had needed to chase it for an update and reported further incidents. It is unclear what the landlord’s response to the resident’s text messages were or whether they were picked up before the resident had to call the landlord to request an update.
The landlord acted appropriately by advising the resident to report incidents of threatening and racist behaviour to the police. It is noted from the evidence reviewed that the resident did not want to do this due to previous bad experiences with the police. As the landlord had received counter-allegations from the neighbours, it was also reasonable for it to advise them to report any alleged crimes to the police. It was also appropriate for the landlord to discuss with the resident the counter-allegations it had received about his behaviour. This approach shows that it was acting fairly and impartially. This Service also finds that the landlord’s decision to quickly challenge the resident’s neighbours on the alleged threats made to him was appropriate.
Once it had set up a new ASB case, the landlord acted appropriately by interviewing two of the resident’s three neighbours over the telephone on 1 August 2022. It could however have done this earlier had it set up a new case on or around 7 July 2022. This was a lost opportunity for it to have had a positive impact on the situation as the resident stated that he experienced further incidents of ASB between his initial reports and the landlord setting up the ASB case on its systems.
The landlord subsequently acted appropriately by working alongside it’s local policing partners as part of its investigations into the resident’s reports of ASB and also the counter-allegations from his neighbours.
However, its records show that it took close to two months following the opening of the resident’s ASB case to contact the police regarding the reports of ASB it had received. It is not clear why the landlord took so long to do this, given that it was aware of reports of possible criminal matters being reported by both the resident and some of his neighbours.
The landlord should have prioritised this and listed it within the action plan it agreed with the resident on 28 July 2022. Had it done so, it could have resolved the situation earlier and this may have gone some way to reducing the impact of the ongoing ASB on the resident. This is especially important given that the resident had reported threats of violence and hate incidents aimed at him but had informed the landlord that he did not feel happy dealing with the police. There is also no evidence to show that the landlord followed up with the resident after they had advised him to contact the police.
The landlord carried out a risk assessment with the resident giving a score of 23 out of 36 (medium risk). It is unclear on what date the assessment was carried out and some sections of the assessment were not fully completed. Within the assessment, the resident stated that he felt the ASB being aimed at him was hate related. The resident also noted he had received threats of violence from his neighbours and that he was feeling very affected by the ASB, stating that the impact on him was “A great deal now and depressed”. It is also noted that within the complainant profile section of this document that the resident is autistic and has OCD and a borderline personality disorder.
As outlined earlier within this report, this information does not align with the landlord stating the resident has no known vulnerabilities listed on its systems. Regardless of the outcome score on a risk assessment matrix, landlords can offer support to residents who are experiencing ASB. This Service finds that the landlord did not consider the information provided by the resident relating to his disabilities and potential vulnerability, plus the significant impact he had stated the ASB was having, including feeling depressed. Had the landlord offered the resident support, this could have gone some way towards helping him manage the ASB he was experiencing as a complainant, but also as an alleged perpetrator of ASB.
Whilst the landlord acted appropriately in agreeing an action plan with the resident,it did not keep to its agreement to contact him every two weeks. The landlord did state in its stage two complaint response that its officer had tried to contact him, but was unable to add notes to its systems. As the resident did not receive the agreed fortnightly contact from the landlord, this left him being uncertain on the progress of the landlord’s investigations. It is however noted that the landlord acknowledged this in its stage two complaint response and took a reasonable step by assigning another officer to the case and reconfirming that the resident would continue to receive fortnightly contact.
There is no evidence that the landlord considered offering mediation to the resident and his neighbours. Had it done so at the earliest possible stage, this could have gone some way to resolving the situation much earlier on behalf of all parties and also reducing the impact of the ASB on the resident. The landlord’s records also show that in October 2022 its policing partners had suggested that the landlord could facilitate good neighbour agreements between the resident and his neighbours but there is no evidence to show that it did this. This would have been a sensible step to take to try and resolve the ASB. This Service finds that the landlord did not fully consider or apply the early intervention options listed in its ASB procedure and the landlord therefore missed the opportunity to resolve the ASB at the earliest possible stage.
In relation to its investigations into the resident’s reports of ASB, the landlord acted appropriately by asking the resident to complete incident diaries. The landlord’s records show that it provided the resident with diaries but he did not return them. This would inevitably have made it more difficult for the landlord to have a clearer picture of the ASB that was affecting the resident and for it to take action accordingly.

The landlord’s response to a blocked walkway to the rear of the resident’s property.

It is clear from the evidence reviewed by this Service that the resident and his direct neighbour had been in dispute for some time regarding the access to, and use of, the walkway area. The landlord was in contact with the resident regarding his use of the walkway area and reasonably requested that he removed items from his garden which were not in line with the terms of his signed tenancy agreement. It is understood that the resident had installed these items to give better privacy between his and his neighbour’s gardens.
The landlord’s surveyors attended the property on numerous occasions and sought to provide a solution to the situation by installing a redesigned walkway to try and reduce incidents of alleged ASB. It also removed a fence panel that it had installed some years earlier at the resident’s request. These were reasonable actions for the landlord to take, as was its reminder to him not to use the walkway area to store his waste bins.
The landlord’s records show that as of 1 June 2023, it had approved the works to the walkway and it was awaiting quotes from a number of contractors before the works could take place. From the evidence reviewed, this Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of issues relating to a walkway to the rear of the resident’s property.

The landlord’s complaint handling approaches

Following contact from this Service, the landlord contacted the resident via telephone on 10 August 2022 to discuss his complaint. This was a reasonable step which allowed the landlord to better understand the reasons for his complaint.
Whilst it did provide the resident with its stage one complaint response within the timescale it had outlined in its acknowledgment to him, its response dated 24 August 2022 did not clearly confirm whether or not it upheld his complaint. Its stage one response was however clear on the actions it had taken to address the reported ASB and it reiterated its advice for the resident to contact the police to report any potential crimes.
The resident completed a review panel hearing request form as required by the landlord on 5 September 2022. It then wrote to the resident on 12 October 2022 to confirm that it had arranged for his complaint to be heard at a review panel hearing online via Microsoft Teams on 24 October 2022. This Service contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf about the panel review hearing. There is no evidence to show that the landlord considered his request for the hearing to be held via telephone rather than online. It is clear however that the landlord held the review panel hearing without the resident being present. Although the resident was offered the opportunity to submit evidence in advance of the panel review hearing, the landlord acted unfairly by not considering and making arrangements for him to attend the hearing as per his request. This Service finds that the landlord therefore did not follow its complaint resolution policy by making arrangements for him to attend via his preferred method.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised within its stage two complaint response for not keeping to its agreed action to contact him about his ASB case every two weeks and it reassigned his case to another officer.
From the evidence reviewed, this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to a walkway to the rear of the resident’s property being blocked.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not offer the resident any support, both in the context of him being a victim and alleged perpetrator of ASB. This was despite the resident informing the landlord that the ASB was having a serious impact on him. The landlord noted the resident’s health conditions and potential vulnerabilities within the risk assessment matrix it completed with him, yet there is no evidence that it acted on this information by offering or signposting him to any appropriate support. These actions were not in line with the landlord’s ASB policy and procedure.
The landlord took appropriate steps to facilitate the resident’s request for a fence panel blocking his access to a walkway. The landlord also acted appropriately by agreeing to install a redesigned walkway to allow the resident to better access the rear of his property.
The landlord’s complaint handling approaches were mostly consistent with its policy and it acknowledged and apologised to the resident in its stage two complaint response for not keeping to its agreed action of two-weekly contact regarding his ASB reports. It acted appropriately by reassigning his ASB case to another officer and re-confirming that it would contact him every two weeks.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to;

a. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.

b. Pay the resident £350 in compensation which is comprised of:

£250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced due to its handling of his reports of anti-social behaviour.
£100 in recognition of it’s service failings relating to the resident’s complaint.

Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to conduct a case review of its handling of this ASB case, including consideration of measures it will take to ensure appropriate support is offered to residents who score ‘medium’ or ‘high’ on its risk assessment matrix. It should provide this Service with the outcome to this case review.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord is to review its complaints policy with a specific focus on providing further clarity on giving due consideration to resident’s requests to attend panel review hearings relating to their complaints.
The landlord is to consider the findings of the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). The landlord is to share the findings with relevant staff and its management committee, including training where appropriate and to provide this Service with a report on its findings.
The landlord should reply to this Service to confirms its intentions in regard to these recommendations within four weeks of the date of this report.