Origin Housing Limited (202128464)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128464

Origin Housing Limited

22 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbouring property.
2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. She lives in a 2-bedroom mid-terraced house and the tenancy started in August 2019. The landlord has recorded that a household member has vulnerabilities.
The resident reported an ASB complaint to the landlord in October 2019. She requested the landlord take possession proceedings against a neighbour due to incidents of ASB by the neighbour or visitors to the property. She said it had failed to enforce an injunction on the neighbour when in place between October 2019 to March 2020. There is evidence the landlord provided a final response to this in January 2021.
The resident raised another formal complaint about repeat ASB issues on 14 October 2021. She said she had attempted to raise this on at least 3 occasions during 2021 and the landlord had failed to respond. She considered that the injunctions were not working and described ASB incidents from her neighbour and visitors as ongoing. This included noise, suspected drug dealing, and intimidation of residents.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaint process on 25 March 2022. It offered its apology for the delayed response and explained it had been experiencing “significant staff shortages.” It advised the case had been discussed in court due to the injunction breaches and a new trial date had been set for 19 to 20 April 2022. The landlord requested its legal team seek a new injunction and it had supplied all evidence from other residents to support this. It offered £50 compensation as a good will gesture to recognise its delayed response and communication.
The resident escalated her complaint on 30 March 2022. She questioned how effective another injunction would be. She did not consider the £50 compensation sufficient as she felt she was unable to “live normally” between October 2019 to May 2020. She requested a 50% rent refund for the period October 2019 to May 2020 and a 25% rent refund while matters remained ongoing.
In April and June 2022 the resident contacted the Ombudsman as the landlord had failed to provide her with a stage 2 response. Following our attempts to secure a response for her, the landlord was issued with a compliant handling failure order (CHFO).
The landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 response on 19 July 2022. It apologised for its delay and was sorry that she remained dissatisfied. It considered the history of its ASB case and although it was satisfied with its approach it acknowledged there had been failures and gaps in its communication. It provided a comprehensive response and reasons for upholding or not upholding parts of her complaint. It increased its offer of compensation from £50 to £500.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 20 July 2022. The landlord contacted the resident on 15 August 2022 as she had not responded to its offer of compensation. It advised that the case would be closed but its offer of compensation was still available. The landlord asked her to make contact.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
In correspondence with the Ombudsman during 2023 the resident raised concerns about the landlord issuing her with a legal “before action” warning letter. This was in relation to ASB counter claims from a neighbour that she was causing ASB and her dogs a nuisance. She also made new reports about the neighbour causing ASB and drug dealing.
These matters were not raised in the resident’s complaint of 14 October 2021 and did not form part of the landlord’s final response on 19 July 2022. The landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to these points. Therefore they have not been considered during this investigation. If the resident has not already done so, she may wish to raise a separate complaint with the landlord in the first instance.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint handling body.
There were further matters raised after the landlord’s stage 2 final response. These were about the landlord’s use of her personal information when investigating complaints and its request that she limit the angle of use of CCTV she installed at the property. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate either of these matters and cannot determine whether any data protection laws have been broken. The resident may wish to seek guidance on these matters from the information commissioner’s office (ICO).

Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbouring property

It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the actions or inactions of the landlord. It is not to decide if the actions of the neighbour amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and in accordance with its policies and procedures. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take specific action against neighbours.
The landlords ASB policy states that it will risk assess all reported ASB incidents to determine their severity. This includes looking at the vulnerability of those experiencing ASB in order to assess the support and action required and to be able to prioritise those most vulnerable or at risk of harm.
Between October 2019 to November 2019 there is evidence the landlord communicated with the resident and requested copies of ASB diary sheets. This was appropriate as it demonstrated collating evidence of recently reported ASB incidents caused by the neighbour or visitors. However there was no evidence of an action plan or a risk assessment. Therefore there were no details of how it would manage the reported ASB case, the frequency it would communicate with the resident, or whether the resident’s support needs had been considered. This was not appropriate and not in line with its policy.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it recognises that most anti-social behaviour cannot be tackled in isolation by a single agency and that working in partnership with other agencies is necessary. In March 2020 the local council conducted an ASB case review under the community trigger procedure. While this was appropriate it is unclear from the evidence whether the landlord provided this option to the resident. While it would be for the local authority to decide whether a review would take place, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explaining this option to the resident. The resident says she approached the council herself.
It is understandable that the presence of nuisance behaviour would cause distress and the resident would hope to have matters resolved quickly. However the landlord is bound by legal processes and must ensure it has sufficient evidence to secure the desired outcome. Its ASB policy states “where warnings and attempts at early intervention have not worked or where the behaviour is serious, enforcement action will be considered. It will decide what enforcement action is most appropriate on a case by case basis and reserve the right to take whatever action it considers to be reasonable in the circumstances.”
The landlord demonstrated its commitment to address ASB by serving a notice of seeking possession (NoSP) on 6 March 2020. Furthermore while working with the local authority and the police, the police served the neighbour’s partner with a Community Protection Notice (CPN). This demonstrates partnership working and that the reports of ASB at the address were being addressed.
During March 2020 to April 2020 the resident emailed the landlord unhappy that possession proceedings had not started. It was reasonable that the landlord explained the process and advised that due to the pandemic the government had introduced the Coronavirus Act 2020. It explained that this now meant a NoSP would require a 3 month notice period before proceedings could commence.
As a result of the Coronavirus Act 2020:
1. Notice periods for most types of tenancy were temporarily extended between 26 March and 30 September 2021.
2. A stay on evictions was extended between 17 November 2020 to 31 May 2021.
3. The government retained the power to require landlords to serve longer notices up to 25 March 2022.
As this legislation was introduced by the government as an emergency response to the pandemic, it was appropriate the landlord adhered to the amended legal requirements.
As the injunction was due to expire on 6 April 2020, there is evidence that the landlord sought advice from its legal team. It was reasonable for the landlord to seek professional legal advice considering the legislation changes. The legal team warned of the ongoing uncertainty caused by the pandemic, the likelihood of delays with court hearing dates, and recommended a further injunction. As this was at the start of a very uncertain time, this action was reasonable. It demonstrated the landlord’s commitment to consider its options and to maintain action while adhering to the emergency legislation.
On 5 May 2020 the council took the resident’s neighbour to court and obtained a partial closure order. Restrictions were placed on who could enter or remain at the neighbour’s property. An extension application was also granted until 4 November 2020. Therefore, the community trigger had acted in the interests of the resident and the reports of ASB were being addressed while still restricted by the Coronavirus Act 2020.
The resident remained dissatisfied that the neighbour had not been evicted and her local councillor contacted the council and landlord. The council responded and advised that within 8-weeks of the ASB being brought to its attention it was granted a partial closure order. It had been working with the police and the landlord and there had been no recent reports of ASB or reported breaches of the order. It advised the councillor that due to the pandemic there had been no courts for evictions and the government’s focus was to keep people secure and housed. This demonstrated the council was satisfied that the landlord was working with partners and within the legislation available at the time. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
Between October 2020 to January 2021 the resident and landlord communicated. She said the neighbour’s partner continued to breach the injunction order. There is evidence that the landlord discussed this matter with its legal team and the police. It submitted an information sharing agreement to the police and await a response. Within this period the landlord’s legal team advised:
1. There had been no reported breaches of the order and “things had gone quieter because of the partial closure order.”
2. From a legal point of view the CPN on the partner was a police matter and therefore the landlord had no powers to get involved.
3. It understood the resident’s frustrations but as there had been no reported breaches there was nothing it could currently do. It encouraged the resident to report incidents of breaches when they happened to the landlord and to the police.
The legal advice sought, partnership working, and action taken by the landlord demonstrated that it had acted on the resident’s reports of ASB. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy. However the continued lack of an action plan or scheduled conversations with the resident to update her was not in line with its policy. The policy states that open cases will be monitored to check that residents are being contacted within agree timescales. There is no evidence of this been done. This was not appropriate and often left the resident feeling the need to chase for updates.
On 12 January 2021 the landlord issued a stage 2 final response as part of an ongoing ASB complaint. Within which it recognised that:
1. It had not initially opened an ASB case when the resident first reported ASB in 2019.
2. It acknowledged that its level of communication had not followed procedure and it had not consistently kept her informed.
3. It also agreed that it had “not necessarily worked with other agencies as early as it could have.”
It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise these failures. However given that it had accepted failure for not following its policy guidelines, it is unclear why no offer of redress to put things right was made at this stage. Furthermore, there is no evidence of an action plan being discussed or presented to the resident after acknowledging these failures in its response.
Following a further ASB incident with the neighbour’s partner on 15 January 2021, the landlord informed the resident that it had contacted its legal team. It discussed varying the injunction order to exclude the neighbours partner from the property. As the neighbour’s partner was not named on the tenancy this was a reasonable step for the landlord to consider at this stage. The landlord advised the resident that its legal team would require witness statements. This was reasonable as evidence would be required to improve the likelihood of success in court.
It is reasonable thar the resident expressed concerns about providing named witness statements due to “fear of reprisal.” She expressed a need for an adjustment to be considered, such as a video link. Although the landlord discussed this with its legal team and reassured her that the statements could be anonymous, the resident’s presence was requested by the court. Due to the backlog of court cases, a hearing date was delayed. It is understandable that this would have been disappointing for the resident, however this was beyond the landlord’s control.
In August 2021 there is evidence that the landlord authorised a management transfer request for the resident. Although the ASB did not meet its transfer criteria, it considered a transfer beneficial for her and her son. The landlord advised the resident that due to its limited stock she should also register on Home Swapper for a mutual exchange. It said this may increase her chance of a move. This demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to support the resident with her desire to move and the options available to her to make it possible.
Between October 2021 to December 2021 the landlord communicated with the resident and a local councillor. The resident had described feeling “fobbed off” and “messed around” by the landlord. It was reasonable that the landlord responded and explained that it had been working with residents and the police to manage the reported ASB. It explained that it was due to attend court on 1 November 2021 for possession proceedings and to request committal for breach of injunction. However the judge adjourned the case to allow more time for the defendant to provide a defence. While this would understandably have been upsetting for the resident, this was a decision by a judge and out of the landlord’s control.
As the resident made new and repeated complaint points, the landlord issued a stage 1 response on 22 March 2022. It acknowledged and apologised as it should have maintained contact about ASB at least once a month. This had not happened. It offered a good will gesture of £50 for the lack of contact and its delays responding to her requests for information. Having again identified a repeat communication failure, it is unclear why there is no evidence of an action plan being agreed to put this right.
In April 2022 the resident did not attend the arranged court hearing. Although the landlord had explained that the court required medical evidence to facilitate a video link request, the resident did not provide this. The landlord offered to help contact the resident’s doctor on her behalf and offered to pay for her transport to court. This demonstrated it offering support to facilitate her attendance. The judge disregarded her witness statement in her absence.
However, the landlord had secured sufficient evidence and the neighbour’s injunction was extended until 19 October 2023. While the resident expressed dissatisfaction with an injunction rather than an eviction, this demonstrated that the landlord had taken reasonable steps to prevent ASB. The ability to secure evictions and court dates remained delayed due to the Coronavirus Act 2020. Therefore, this outcome was reasonable in the circumstances.
On 19 July 2022 the landlord issued a stage 2 final response regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. It did not uphold that it had failed to take action. However it upheld that it had not provided the resident with regular updates as agreed. It had failed to inform her of the outcome of the court hearing in April 2022 and there had been delays to its complaint handling. Although it would not refund her rent, it acknowledged its failings and offered a good will gesture of £500.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology and compensation), put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
There is evidence that the landlord undertook multiple legal steps to support the resident with the reports of ASB. It encountered delays caused by legislation changes during the pandemic and was limited to the enforcement action it could take at that time. However, there is evidence of its communication with its legal team, the police, and the council to ensure it was working in partnership. It has demonstrated its efforts to take the appropriate action at the time and sought legal advice to request variations or extensions to in junction orders.
Although the resident would no doubt have preferred the neighbour to have been evicted, the landlord’s actions are reliant on legislation, evidence, and the decision of a court. Its actions must also be proportionate in the circumstances. As much of the reported ASB was regarding a non-resident, which commenced around the start of the pandemic, the Ombudsman considers the landlord acted appropriately to seek legal advice and take the enforcement action available to it.
The landlord did not dispute that there were communication failures when providing its ASB service. Therefore it was appropriate for it to recognise and apologise for this failure. Given the impact on landlords’ staffing and services during the pandemic, its explanation that staff shortages had impacted its workloads is not unreasonable. Although it continued to take enforcement action to address the resident’s reports, it recognised there had been an accumulation of service failures with its communication. It was therefore appropriate that it revised its offer of compensation to put things right.
While it is unclear how the landlord’s offer of compensation was allocated to each complaint point, it has taken appropriate steps to acknowledge and apologise for the shortcomings and offer redress. However it has failed to demonstrate what it has learned from this case or explain what action it would take to prevent similar failings happening again. Risk assessments are essential to identify the threat posed to a resident and any support needs they may have. The level of threat and support required can change. There is no evidence that this process was completed or monitored.
Therefore we would have found reasonable redress but for the lack of evidence of any learning from outcomes. We find service failure for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbouring property and an order has been made below.

Associated formal complaint

There is evidence that the resident emailed the landlord on 19 June, 2 July, and 14 October 2021 to raise a complaint about its handling of reports of ASB. While there is evidence of ongoing communication with the resident there is no evidence of the landlord specifically acknowledging or addressing the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction. This was not appropriate and not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
While its complaint policy states that reports of ASB will not usually be managed through its complaint procedure, it states a distinction between a request for service and a complaint about a service. Had it made this distinction there is no evidence it shared or explained its position to the resident.
The landlord operates a 2 stage formal complaints procedure. At stage 1 a resident can expect a response within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. When it is not possible to provide a response within 20 working days, the landlord will contact the resident to explain this, set out reasons why and when to expect a response. It will agree when the resident when they can expect a response and extend its response deadline by up to 10 working days.
The resident’s complaint was eventually recorded as of 14 October 2021 and the landlord issued a stage 1 response on 25 March 2022. This was not appropriate as it was 103 working days beyond its compliant response time as set out in its complaints policy. Furthermore there is no evidence that it agreed an extension to send its response to the resident and no updates about the delay.
In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised that the resident had had to complain to get an update on her ASB case. It explained staff shortages and assured the resident that a new team manager would contact her to introduce themselves. There is evidence that this happened. Therefore the landlord demonstrated taking steps to address the reported issues.
However within the stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that it should have kept the resident up to date, maintained contact at least once a month or within timeframes agreed by a staff member. There is evidence that that these identified issues remained on going and no evidence of an agreed action plan to resolve the concerns raised. This was a failing. Action plans provide clarity to all parties, demonstrate understanding of the issues and support needs, and manages expectations. This demonstrates that the landlord did not investigate the complaint in line with its policy and good practices.
Having escalated her complaint on 30 March 2022 the resident sought help from the Ombudsman in April and May 2022 as no stage 2 response was forthcoming. A compliant handling failure order was issued in July 2022 as the landlord failed to resolve our requests for action. This was not appropriate and not in line with the expectations placed on mandatory members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
On 19 July 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. This was not appropriate as it was 55 working days beyond its complaint response time as set out in its complaint policy.
The landlord’s stage 2 response apologised and acknowledged its complaint handling failings. It was therefore appropriate that it increased its offer of compensation. As discussed earlier in this report, it is unclear how much of the landlord’s compensation offer was assigned to remedy its complaint handling failure. However when assessing the overall sum in line with the remedies guidance available to us, its apology and overall offer was reasonable.
The landlord’s stage 2 response informed the resident that it had spoken to a senior member of staff who would conduct an internal review to understand why the complaint handling went wrong. It explained that these findings would be fed into recommendations for the revision of its complaint handling procedures which were taking place later that year. While it was appropriate for the landlord to recognise the need for improvement it failed to demonstrate how it had learned from outcomes and what action it would take at that point in time to ensure the failure did not happen again. It would have been appropriate at this stage to recognise the need to provide refresher training to staff. Taking this into account the Ombudsman finds service failure and an order has been made below.

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 anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbouring property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay £500 compensation offered at stage 2 if it has not already done so.
2. The landlord is ordered to review its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers respond and deal with complaints in accordance with its complaints procedure. The landlord may benefit from the free resources available via the Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning. This is available on our website.
3. The landlord is ordered to provide refresher training to ensure all ASB officers are aware of the need to complete risk assessments in line with its policy and procedures. This training should include the importance of maintaining regular communication with residents with open ASB cases to provide updates, and to assess any changes to their support needs.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should review how it sets out any compensation offered and how it explains which complaint point it is attributed to. This will improve clarity and understanding to all those reading it.