Paradigm Housing Group Limited (201916010)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201916010

Paradigm Housing Group Limited

11 December 2020

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 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. Response to and handling of the resident’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) allegations
2. Response to the resident’s request for a management transfer due to ASB
3. Complaint handling

Background and Summary of Events

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.
The property is a flat.

Summary of events

On 10 October 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord to make a formal complaint regarding its response to and handling of ASB from neighbouring tenants (the tenants). The resident said that she had been reporting ASB for over four years however the landlord had not taken action to address the situation. The resident explained that the ASB was mostly noise nuisance. The resident requested that the landlord put her on the “housing list” for a property transfer. Within her complaint the resident noted that another resident (resident A) had also raised ASB concerns about the tenants.
On 24 October 2019 the landlord acknowledged the complaint confirming that it would provide a response within 15 working days.
On 26 November 2019 the landlord provided its stage one response. In summary the landlord said.
It had attempted to contact the resident to discuss the complaint however it had not been successful.
It had reviewed its response to the resident’s ASB allegations in order to investigate the complaint. The landlord said that most recently it requested that the resident work with the local authority’s Environmental Health Team (EHT) to collect evidence. The landlord noted that it visited the property with EHT “at the beginning of the year” who offered to install noise monitoring equipment however the resident refused.
It was responsible for investigating ASB however it required the cooperation of residents to do so. The landlord explained that in some cases it also required assistance from other agencies such as EHT to “inform and progress any action [it could] take on the case”.
It therefore correctly advised the resident that it could not take any further action regarding her reports of noise nuisance by the tenants without her cooperation with EHT.
While the resident had offered to make her own recordings of the noise by the tenants it would not be able to use the recordings as evidence in any enforcement action.
It would contact resident A regarding his ASB concerns separately. The landlord confirmed that it could not provide details of any conversations with resident A.
It was unable to approve the resident’s request for a management move as she did “not meet [its] criteria” as it had no evidence to support that the move was required due to ASB. The landlord confirmed that if the resident wished to move she should approach the local authority or “explore options such as Homeswapper”.
The landlord concluded by confirming that it was unable to uphold the complaint as it had fulfilled its obligation in investigating and managing the resident’s ASB allegations.
On 27 December 2019 the resident submitted a complaint form to the landlord. On the form the resident documented that she continued to experience ASB from the tenants. The resident stated that the ASB had been on-going since 2015 but the landlord had taken no action.
On 6 March 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord regarding her complaint. In summary the resident said:
1. The landlord had not responded to her complaint form dated December 2019.
2. The landlord must arrange a management move due to the ASB as she was not able to enjoy her home.
3. The ASB continued. The resident reiterated that the ASB was noise nuisance, in addition to “being attacked by the tenants [and their] visitors” and “drug use”.
On 13 March 2020 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s correspondence dated 6 March 2020. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry that it had not responded to the resident’s complaint form, explaining that it believed that the resident was going to follow up with a “further letter”.
2. It had responded to the resident’s complaint about its handling of her ASB allegations in November 2019 and her request for a management move.
3. The resident had not provided any new evidence of ASB by the tenants.
4. It would arrange for the resident’s Housing Officer (the HO) to contact the resident to discuss her ASB concerns.
5. The resident’s on-going ASB concerns would be “managed outside of [its] complaint procedure”.
On 18 March 2020 the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord. The Ombudsman explained that the resident had contacted this Service regarding her complaint about its handling of her ASB allegations. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to conclude consideration of the complaint under its complaint procedure.
On 15 April 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. The landlord said that it was writing following its letter dated 13 March 2020 and the Ombudsman’s contact. The landlord noted that the resident had left the HO a voice message asking that they did not contact her. The landlord advised that it was “keen to discuss [the case with the resident] and work with [her] to agree a way forward”. The landlord confirmed that it would therefore arrange for a senior officer (the SO) to contact the resident on 22 April 2020.
On 24 April 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. In summary the landlord said:
1. The SO and resident had spoken on 22 April 2020.
2. The resident had not reported any ASB since 2 October 2019 and therefore it requested that she “start recording and reporting any incidents” to the HO. The landlord confirmed that this could be done “in a variety of ways including diary sheets, or via [its] noise app”. The landlord explained that, by providing it with reports, it would be able to understand what the issues were and take action as necessary. The landlord reiterated that without evidence it was “impossible” for it to take action. The landlord confirmed that it would therefore ask the HO to contact the resident to assist her with downloading the noise app and to provide diary sheets.
3. It was aware that the resident had discussed alternative accommodation with the local authority who informed her to contact it regarding a management move.
4. It has specific criteria which applicants must meet for them to be eligible for a management move within its own stock. The landlord confirmed that it was “on this basis [the resident had] been advised that it [was] unlikely [she would] meet the criteria to be placed on [its] management move list”. The landlord however noted that the resident had made no formal application for a management move and therefore it would ask the HO to complete the relevant form with the resident. The landlord noted that its list for a management move had around 70 applicants on it, and therefore if the resident was accepted she would be waiting for a move for a considerable period of time. The landlord confirmed that it would ask the HO to also discuss other options such as a mutual exchange and using the Homeswapper website.
The landlord concluded by confirming that it was unable to uphold the complaint “due to lack of information received by [it] to show this [was] an ongoing ASB issue’. The landlord said that its response concluded stage one of its complaint procedure.
On 29 April 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to reiterate that she was concerned regarding its handling of her ASB allegations.
On 30 April 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming that it would provide a response at stage two of its complaint procedure as she continued to remain dissatisfied regarding its handling of her ASB allegations. The landlord confirmed that it would call the resident on 6 May 2020 to discuss the complaint in more detail.
On 6 May 2020 the landlord spoke with the resident. The landlord’s internal record of the conversation recorded:
1. The resident confirmed that she was “happy” with recent interaction with the HO.
2. The resident confirmed that her application for a management move was completed. The resident was “disappointed” that it would likely take a long time to consider her application due to “medical evidence”.
3. The resident confirmed that she was “disappointed” that other residents would not support her allegations about the tenants.
4. The resident would like the landlord to remind all residents of their obligations as tenants and to be considerate of their neighbours.
5. The resident requested that the landlord evict tenants after three incidents of “bad behaviour”. The landlord confirmed that it was unable to do this as it was required to follow “a strict eviction process”.
On 16 May 2020 the landlord provided its final response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry that the resident was not happy with the service it had provided.
2. It was pleased that the HO had assisted the resident to complete a management move application.
3. It had considered whether it should have processed the resident’s application for a management move earlier. The landlord concluded that it did follow its procedure, explaining that as the resident did not meet the criteria to be moved she was not offered the opportunity to apply. The landlord stated that once it was aware that there may have been relevant medical factors it was “then” appropriate to process the application.
4. It understood that the resident had “a long-standing issue with nuisance and disturbance” by the tenants. The landlord explained that without proper evidence it was unable to take action
5. It was aware that the resident had refused EHT’s offer to install noise monitoring equipment to help gather evidence.
6. It had issued a letter to all residents, which would be followed by a call, giving everyone an opportunity to have “their say” including about ASB. The landlord said that there had not been enough “hard evidence of ASB to warrant doing this before now”.
7. The resident should continue to record ASB in diary sheets.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may refer her complaint to the Ombudsman if she was not happy with its response.

Assessment and Findings

Scope of investigation

The resident made her formal complaint in October 2019 and the landlord issued its final response in May 2020. Accordingly, the Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB up to May 2020. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which sets out that ‘the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure…’
If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB after May 2020 as suggested in the evidence for review, she would need to make a new formal complaint to the landlord.

The landlord’s response to and handling of the resident’s ASB allegations

The Ombudsman notes that the resident made a complaint in October 2018 regarding the landlord’s response to and handling of ASB by various other residents and priority banding for a property transfer. The landlord responded to the complaint, concluding that it had responded appropriately to the resident’s ASB allegations and advising that it had no control over priority banding as this was the responsibility of the local authority.
The resident did not refer the complaint to the Ombudsman.
Paragraph 39(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.
As the substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for an independent body, such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence and the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, this assessment will therefore only look at the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns from Autumn 2018, which is approximately 12 months prior to her formal complaint dated October 2019 and covers the period following her earlier complaint.
In cases of ASB the role of the Ombudsman is to investigate how a landlord has handled any reports of ASB it has received and to determine if it has acted in accordance with its policies and procedures, taking into consideration the issues being reported.
From the evidence provided the Ombudsman notes that the ASB allegations reported by the resident relate mostly to noise nuisance. The allegations include “washing machine”, “banging a lot” – including doors and windows, “rushing water”, “kettle”, “thudding on floor”, “loud talking” and “rustling noises”. The resident stated that the noises occurred at all times of the day and at unsociable hours during the night.
The landlord defines ASB as “deliberate and intentional acts” causing “nuisance, harassment, alarm and distress”. The landlord’s website sets out that some types of noise may be anti-social.
As the resident’s allegations could fall within the landlord’s definition of ASB it was therefore necessary for the landlord to respond to the allegations and to take action to resolve any issues it identified.
The landlord has provided its records documenting its response to the resident’s ASB allegations.
The evidence shows that, in response to the resident’s allegations, the landlord did respond. This included scheduling meetings with the resident to discuss the allegations, requesting the resident keep diary sheets, liaising with EHT to install noise monitoring equipment in the property and discussing the allegations with the tenants (in person and in writing). The Ombudsman can also see that the landlord completed a risk assessment in October 2018, which identified the risk of the reported allegations was medium/low.
The Ombudsman notes that despite the landlord requesting co-operation by the resident to gather evidence the resident declined to do so. This included cancelling the landlord’s meetings, declining to complete diary sheets and refusing noise monitoring equipment from EHT.
The evidence shows that the tenants refuted the resident’s allegations about them on notification.
In order to take action against a tenant for acts of ASB, including legal action, a landlord has to be sure that it would be a proportionate and justified response to the allegations raised and the evidence obtained. As the landlord had no corroborating evidence, its position that it was unable to take any action at that time, in response to the resident’s concerns, was reasonable.
The Ombudsman notes that throughout the period under review the landlord reiterated that it was unable to take any action to address the ASB concerns without evidence from the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was reasonable and in line with its ASB policy which sets out that residents must play a part in tackling ASB and where there is a lack of cooperation from one party or another it may prevent the landlord from assisting further.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management transfer due to ASB

The landlord’s guidance on management transfers sets out that it may consider a management transfer in order it to “deal with a serious or protracted tenancy management matter”. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this would reasonably include a move required in order to manage or resolve ASB.
As the landlord had no evidence to corroborate the resident’s ASB allegations it was reasonable for the landlord to decline to offer her alternative accommodation on the grounds of ASB.
While the landlord’s decision to not offer a management transfer due to ASB was reasonable, as set out above, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord formally considered the resident’s request in line with the guidance or provided the resident with a formal letter confirming that she was not eligible. This would have been appropriate. However, the Ombudsman does not consider that the landlord’s omission amounts to a service failure as it did not adversely impact the resident.
The Ombudsman can see that the landlord has assisted the resident to complete a management transfer application due to medical need following its final response. This was appropriate as it committed to doing so.
The evidence shows that throughout the period and in response to the resident’s requests for a management move the landlord provided information on alternative options to secure new accommodation, such as applying to the local authority and considering a mutual exchange. This was appropriate as the landlord understood that the resident was not happy in the property.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy sets out that it will deal with complaints “as soon as possible”. The policy includes a timeframe matrix indicating the length of time which may be required to resolve a complaint depending on its complexity. The policy indicates that a complex complaint response should be provided within 15 to 25 working days.
Following a review of the chronology of the case the Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s handling of the complaint overall was not satisfactory for these reasons:
1. The landlord’s stage one response was provided outside of its timeframe for complex complaints from date of receipt. Further the response was not provided by the deadline the landlord itself provided on 24 October 2019.
2. The landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to the resident’s complaint form dated December 2019 on receipt, and only did so following a chaser by the resident in March 2020. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord did apologise for its omission and provided an explanation.
3. The landlord did not escalate the complaint in March 2020, confirming that it would respond to the resident’s concerns under its ASB policy. There is a distinction between a landlord’s investigation of a resident’s ASB allegations and a complaint about the landlord’s handling of a resident’s ASB allegations. As the resident had expressed concerns regarding its handling of her ASB allegations it was inappropriate that the landlord did not respond to the resident under its complaint procedure.
4. It is not clear why the landlord provided a second stage one response on 24 April 2020 instead of escalating the complaint for a review. The landlord’s decision delayed the resident’s access to the Ombudsman.
While the landlord’s handling of the complaint was not always satisfactory the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s responses were appropriate as they addressed the issues raised and provided sufficient explanation to support its conclusions.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to and handling of the resident’s ASB allegations
2. No maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s request for a management transfer due to ASB
3. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling

Reasons

In order to take action against a tenant for acts of ASB, including legal action, a landlord has to be sure that it would be a proportionate and justified response to the allegations raised and the evidence obtained. As the landlord had no corroborating evidence to support the resident’s allegations about the tenants, its position that it was unable to take any action at that time was reasonable. The evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable and proportionate steps to gather evidence.
The landlord’s decision to not award the resident a management transfer was in line with its guidance on management transfers.
While the landlord’s complaint responses addressed the issues raised, the landlord’s overall handling of the complaint was unsatisfactory, including time taken to respond at stage one, ignored complaint correspondence, failure to respond to the resident’s concerns under its complaint procedure and delaying the resident access to the Ombudsman by providing two stage one complaint responses.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation in respect of its complaint handling within four weeks of the date of the report.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure that it considers all requests for a management move formally and in line with the relevant guidance, including by providing the resident with formal notification of the outcome of consideration of the request.
The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, which demonstrates best practice in complaint handling, in order to improve its service delivery.