Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202014965)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014965

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

31 October 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of ASB (anti social behaviour).
2. The landlord’s handling of the residents complaint.
This investigation has also considered the landlords record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a joint assured tenant of a two bedroom terraced house, the tenancy started on 14 December 2004. The landlord has disabilities recorded for the household but does not detail what these are.
The landlords policy defines ASB in line with the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 as “conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relations to the persons occupations of residential premises”. It outlines its approach to ASB “where the perpetrator is a tenant or leaseholder, a member of their household or a visitor”.
The landlord’s ASB policy has two categories of ASB; Level 1 includes serious and hate related incidents such as hate crime and violence. Level 2 includes persistent nuisance such as harassment, intimidating behaviour, and using the landlord’s housing for unlawful illegal activity. It aims to acknowledge level 1 ASB within one working day and Level 2 ASB within three working days.
This policy also sets out an extensive “range of tools” to manage the behaviour and a series of measures to support those on the receiving end of that conduct. These tools and measures include writing to and interviewing the perpetrator; mediation; referral to other agencies; working with police; installation of CCTV and security measures; injunctions; possession proceedings; and “in exceptional cases” a management transfer. The policy places a responsibility on residents complaining of ASB to provide “appropriate evidence of the incidents and nuisance they experience”.
The landlord’s online ASB information states “a neighbour dispute is a private disagreement between neighbours. Our policy is not to get involved.” These include cases of parking disputes.
The landlords neighbour dispute policy has an objective “To minimise the escalation of disputes and decrease the likelihood of a relationship breakdown between those involved”.
The landlords neighbour dispute policy also states it “will establish if either party is vulnerable and if there have been any incidents of abusive or violent behaviour. A vulnerability or risk assessment will be carried out if we believe that either party is at risk or requires support to achieve a positive resolution”.
The landlord’s complaint policy at the time, used the following as a definition of a complaint “a complaint shall be defined as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”. Which was in line with the complaint handling code at the time. It further defines an enquiry and service request as the following:
1. “An enquiry is when a customer contacts us to ask us something about their home or tenancy.
2. A service request is when a customer contacts us to ask us to do something to their home or tenancy”.
This policy outlines circumstances where “a matter will not be considered a complaint”. This includes, “A complaint about neighbour nuisance and antisocial behaviour is not a complaint about our service. It will be dealt with under our Neighbour Dispute or Antisocial Behaviour Policy. If we do not follow what we say in our policy, this may become a complaint”.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that, at stage one of its complaints process it aims to “agree a solution with our customer within 10 working days”. If it cannot and the complaint is particularly complex, it may, on occasion need longer than 10 days to resolve. In these instances, “the customer will be kept informed and regularly updated on the reasons for this”. At stage 2, a “definitive response will be provided within 15 working days following a thorough investigation of the points raised”. In instances it will require more time, the customer “will be kept informed and regularly updated on the reasons for this.”
In July 2020 the Ombudsman issued a Complaint Handling Code which set out good practice that allows landlords to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. At the time of this report a live consultation is underway on proposed changes to the code. The revised Housing Ombudsman Scheme allows the Ombudsman to issue a complaint handling failure order where a landlord is failing to comply with its membership obligations. Examples of when this may happen include failure to progress a complaint through the complaint procedure.

Summary of events

The resident reported to the landlord he was experiencing ASB from two neighbouring households either side of his property, both of which were not tenants of the landlord but another social housing provider. In his first complaint to the landlord regarding its handling of the reported ASB, in January 2021, the resident explained that the ASB was still happening. This service expects formal complaints to be raised with a landlord about an issue within a reasonable period of the issue arising, and a reasonable time period is usually considered to be six months. The evidence provided for this investigation shows a long standing neighbour dispute dating back to 2008 with incidents ranging from intimidating behaviour to alleged hate crime. This investigation centres on the landlord’s response to and handling of the ASB reported to it within a reasonable timeframe of its internal complaints process. In this case that means landlord actions from August 2020 onwards up to the ending of its internal complaint process in December 2022. Reference to matters outside this timeframe are for context only.
On 26 January 2021, the resident requested via email the landlord “start the complaints process and advise” as the ASB “was still happening” and he was receiving “no assistance” from the landlord.
The landlord responded on 9 February 2021, stating this was “not something the housing hub can resolve” therefore a case was raised for the landlords tenancy solutions team.
Following communication from the resident, this service asked the landlord on 17 March 2021, to respond to the residents complaint. The landlord advised it had received the email from this service and had passed it to its tenancy solution manager. Following this, further internal communications from the landlord have been seen which stated the following:
1. As the complaint was “ASB related” it was not logged “formally as a complaint”.
2. What the resident was reporting was not considered ASB.
3. It had liaised with the other social housing provider and they agreed it was not ASB.
In an update to this service on 26 March 2021, the resident stated the ASB as serious, his household was being harassed daily, he felt “racially discriminated against” and “threatened”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 April 2021, about a “strong smell of drugs” coming from the property next door. He reported the smell to be “strong” which made him “feel sick, dizzy, causes strong headaches, running eyes and gives us sore throats”. He stated he was concerned for his families health, advised they were “disabled tenants” and “felt at risk”.
This service wrote to the landlord on 30 April 2021 and requested a response to the complaint within 5 working days. Within this correspondence it was explained if it was of the opinion that the residents reports had been dealt with appropriately and that the issue reported was not ASB then it should issue the resident with a stage 1 response advising the complaint was not upheld.
The landlord sent the resident an email on 4 May 2021 and requested more information regarding the drug use he had reported.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 May 2021, with a summary of the ASB he had been experiencing since 29 December 2020, this included:
1. “Lots of loud crashing and banging” from the property next door.
2. Verbal abuse.
On 11 June 2021, this service wrote to the landlord again and requested a response to the residents complaint be provided within 5 working days.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 June 2021 with further information about the smell of drugs coming from the property next door, he provided police logs and suggested moving his household would resolve the problem or at the very least the landlord could provide a new front UPVC front door to replace the old wooden one to stop the smell coming through.
The landlord contacted the resident via telephone on 29 June 2021 and advised there was nothing it could do as his neighbours were not tenants and advised the resident needed to contact the other social housing provider.
The landlord was issued with a complaint handling failure order by this service on 29 June 2021 as it had failed to raise a complaint about the handling of the residents reports of ASB. The order stated it should provide a full response to the resident within 5 working days and no later than 7 July 2021.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 July 2021 and confirmed a complaint had been raised at stage 1 about how his ASB case had been handled. Within this letter the landlord:
1. Advised the ASB initially raised by the resident “pre-dated” its new complaints policy and were managed under its ASB policy.
2. Accepted its initial communications should have been better and fell short of its expected standards.
3. Advised as a “lesson learnt” complaints about its management of ASB would be addressed in line with the new complaints policy.
4. Said it had been in contact with the landlord of the alleged perpetrator of the ASB but they were not considering the reports as ASB, the landlord had no reports recorded from the resident since May 2020.
5. It agreed to pass any evidence over to the landlord of the alleged perpetrator.
6. Advised the resident to report any hate crime incidents directly to the police and explained what the polices involvement in cases like this were.
7. Although it had not been informed by other agencies about the ASB and hate crime reports it had now requested further information from the police and would contact the resident once this was received.
8. The landlord advised it was not aware of the statements made which suggest a hate crime took place until 25 May 2021 and urged the resident to report it to the police.
9. Said it was committed to supporting the resident with an action plan.
10. Recommended the resident activate a community trigger to the local authority which it would support the resident to do.
11. Said if the police advised there was a significant risk to life it could arrange an emergency move.
12. Advised of other tools or powers to help the situation with the neighbour, including increased security, mediation or an injunction.
13. It also advised a manager would contact the resident the next day to discuss an action plan.
14. A final complaint response would be provided within 10 working days.
The resident contacted this service on 6 July 2021, following the letter from his landlord and advised he had been “down this road many times before” where his landlord provided a first response before a full response which wasted “massive amounts of time” caused undue stress and “gets him nowhere”. He advised the landlord “are now disregarding all the previous evidence” he had sent into them.
The landlord provided a further response on 26 July 2021, within this response it advised:
1. despite ongoing attempts it had been unable to discuss the residents concerns with him.
2. The police had stated no reports of hate crime had been made direct to them.
3. It would like to visit the resident alongside the police to discuss his concerns.
4. It provided a dedicated officer name for a point of contact going forward.
5. If the resident was dissatisfied with the response, he could refer his complaint to this service.
The landlord emailed the resident on 12 August 2021, advised it had spoken to the landlord of the alleged perpetrator and would like to conduct a joint visit on 26 August 2021. It advised in this email that both landlords agreed mediation was not an option for the case.
The landlord issued its stage 1 final response on 20 August 2021. Within this response it advised:
1. It had a meeting arranged with the landlord of the alleged perpetrator the following week to discuss actions.
2. The resident would be contacted by an officer from its “home moves team” to discuss his housing options.
3. It believed all issues had now been addressed at stage 1 and actions had been “put in motion”.
4. If the resident remained dissatisfied, he would need to respond to the letter within 28 days, explain why and what outcome he would be seeking.
The landlords “home moves” team contacted the resident on 23 August 2021.
On 25 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to say he was unable to receive guests at the moment but could do a video call however he did not want to meet with the alleged perpetrators landlord as past meetings had “gone badly” and left him feeling “physically and emotionally drained”.
The resident emailed his direct contact at the landlord on 14 September 2021 and requested an update on the “ASB, harassment and drug taking”.
The resident also requested more time to respond to the landlords stage 1 response on 14 September 2021. The landlord responded to this on 16 September 2021 and asked how long the resident would like. The resident responded with a date of 2 November 2021.
The landlord emailed the resident on 16 September 2021 about the ASB case and gave a reference. Within this email it advised the case was being closed. It said:
1. It had tried to contact him 4 times both via telephone and email.
2. It had liaised with police.
3. A joint visit was offered with the police but the resident declined.
4. It had visited the resident on 23 July 2021 but the resident was unable to speak at the time.
5. Door knocking was completed on the same day to see if other neighbours had issues with “anyone smoking cannabis”, none were reported.
6. It arranged a joint visit with the other registered landlord which the resident had declined.
7. Mediation was suggested but declined by the resident.
8. The case was referred to “housing moves” as the resident wanted to move.
9. It had worked through the case steps, it has agreed an action plan, kept in regular contact and took the right action.
10. It concluded by stating further incidents in the next 3 months would result in the case to be re-opened.
The resident sent a further email on 23 September 2021 to the landlord asking for assistance to stop the drug smell permeating his home. He also advised that the alleged perpetrator continued to “stand outside the front of his house, in his parking space, jump out on him and visitors using the excuse as using their bins”. The resident highlighted the bins were still on the grassed area at the front of his house.
The landlord responded on 24 September 2021, within this email it advised:
1. It was unable to consider enforcement action as the alleged perpetrator was not a tenant.
2. It had offered to do a joint visit but the resident declined.
On the 2 November 2021, the resident requested a further week to respond to the landlords stage 1 response. The landlord confirmed the new date as 9 November 2021.
The resident again requested another weeks extension to respond to the landlords stage 1 response on 8 November 2021. He then sent a further email on 16 November 2021 stating he required more time and “filling in the ASB log” was “time intensive”.
The resident advised the landlord of his reasons of dissatisfaction following its stage 1 response on 22 May 2022. Within this correspondence the resident said:
1. the landlord “continually take the ASB back to the very first stage” which made it feel like “groundhog day”.
2. He felt ignored.
3. The ASB, harassment and lies against him had just got “worse and worse”.
4. Both landlords had offered no protection for him and his “vulnerable family”.
5. He needed to be moved.
In the same communication the resident provided an overview of ASB activity in the area and a suggested action plan of how the landlord could resolve the ASB. This action plan included:
1. The landlord to move the resident or.
2. The landlord to work with the other registered provider to resolve the ongoing ASB by carrying out specific actions, fitting CCTV, getting a good neighbour agreement in place for example.
3. Numerous diary sheets were also submitted alongside this action plan detailing events between the dates of April 2021 through to May 2022. These varied from “strong drug smells” to “dragging bins, gossiping and staring in”.
4. The resident also included attachments to this email which included an email from the police dated, 2 September 2021 where the resident is asked not to continually report a neighbour smoking cannabis in their property, this email describes this as “logging complaints on behalf of a housing association”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 June 2022 as he had received voicemails from the landlord but advised of working an “erratic shift system”. The landlord responded on 22 June 2022 and asked the resident if he had reported the latest ASB to the relevant landlord or the police. The landlord also asked for further information of the latest incident.
The resident gave the landlord the detail of the police log reference for the latest incident on 6 July 2022 and advised more had happened since. He provided detail of the alleged perpetrators talking about him outside his house.
The resident sent the landlord an email on 14 July 2022 and advised he had “almost finished the official logs” but more ASB had happened that night. His wife was “very upset”, the neighbours were “coughing everywhere (during a covid pandemic)” and looked “like they tried to spit on our car”.
The landlord emailed the resident on 21 July 2022 advising it could not take enforcement action against the alleged perpetrator as they were not a tenant and he would need to forward the logs onto the relevant landlord for them to investigate. The police had advised nothing had been reported therefore the landlord encouraged the resident to call 101 to report “criminal matters of harassment” as it was unable to investigate these.
The resident responded on 24 August 2022 saying the landlord was “completely unacceptable” in its response. He stated the relevant landlord does not act against its tenants, his action plan had been totally ignored, the reason for his complaint was the same as in 2007 as the same advice is given with no action. He provided suggested properties he could be moved to on the open sale market at the time. In bold text the resident requested his complaint be “taken to the next stage”.
Following further involvement from this service on 26 October 2022, the landlord acknowledged and logged a stage 2 complaint on 2 November 2022 and advised it would provide a response within 15 working days.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 1 December 2022. Within this response the landlord,
1. Apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and the lack of communication.
2. Explained it had no authority or legal responsibility for non-tenants therefore it was unable to consider any type of enforcement action.
3. Confirmed it had contacted the other landlord and police so they could investigate the ASB.
4. Advised it was unable to find “any more correspondence” between the resident and the manager who responded at stage 1 until 22 May 2022 after the resident had emailed on 14 September 2021.
5. Said it understood the residents frustration but as it could not force the neighbouring landlord to take action, he should consider contacting them direct to deal with the issue.
6. Advised it did not uphold the residents complaint.
7. It believed all issues had been addressed and gave the resident his options for escalation if he remained dissatisfied.
The resident asked this Service to consider his complaint on 13 December 2022, as he felt he was “getting nowhere” with his landlord whilst he and his family were “suffering the continuous onslaught of ASB”.

Assessment and findings

Having considered the information supplied to this investigation, it is important to note that it is not this Service’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it had received and whether it had followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account all of the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of ASB (anti social behaviour).

Landlords should make reporting ASB easy, take complaints about ASB seriously and to follow its ASB policy to investigate reports, taking appropriate actions as required.
The landlords ASB policy details how it would approach ASB between its residents, it does not detail what it would do where one of its residents is an alleged victim of ASB from a party who is not it’s tenant. This does not however mean the landlord should not act in these situations. It is reasonable to expect a resident to approach their own landlord in the first instance when they are experiencing ASB towards them and the landlord should provide suitable assistance and advice. In particular it should signpost its residents to the appropriate agencies to report the ASB to, for example the local authority or police.
Furthermore, a landlord is expected to involve and work with other agencies to help its residents if they are victims of ASB to provide the most appropriate help and support. Local authorities and the police have different responsibilities to landlords and hold specific legal powers to tackle ASB. Regardless of the tenure of a perpetrator the landlord should still consider the continued management ASB and its impact upon its residents. The landlord failed to do this is in this case as it continually reiterated it could take no action therefore the resident should contact the other landlord direct. The resident had clearly set out his reservations in doing this due to past experience yet this was not acknowledged by the landlord which is not acceptable.
When dealing with ASB it is expected the landlord ask victims to keep a record of incidents and, depending on the nature of the ASB, formulate a suitable plan of action in the circumstances of the case. The landlord should have liaised with the police, the other registered social housing provider and the local environmental health team about the alleged drug use the resident reported coming from a neighbouring property. Diary sheets were submitted by the resident in June 2021 but no evidence has been seen that the landlord acknowledged these in a timely manner. This is not acceptable as the landlord knowingly left its resident in this situation with no support since reports made in 2018. Although the resident stated he, at the time a joint visit was suggested, could not accept guests he did advise of alternative means of communication. No evidence has been seen that the landlord acted on this however.
The landlord classes parking as neighbour disputes rather than ASB however evidence provided in this case confirms that the parking issue was one aspect of a long standing neighbour dispute which was unlikely to be resolved without intervention from agencies. It was appropriate of the landlord to offer to support the resident to make an application for a community trigger in its complaint response, however this should have been actioned in response to the residents early reports of the ASB.
The landlord kept a poor standard of records related to the ASB reports raised. The majority of communications were emails, there was no evidence that a risk assessment had been carried out or any action plans made and no case management notes were provided by the landlord. This service has not seen evidence that the landlord clearly explained in full to the resident what options it had available to it and what it would require in order to pursue these, rather it continually advised the resident there was nothing it could do as the alleged perpetrator was not one of its tenants. This is not acceptable, social landlords do have a responsibility to prevent ASB by keeping the neighbourhood and communal areas under their control safe and clean. Civil injunctions are an available legal remedy for landlords in circumstances which do not involve their tenants. Although it is noted this would be a final option and this case may not have met criteria for this course of action this should have been explained to the resident. Instead the resident continued to get little support and his expectations as to any resolution to a long standing neighbour dispute went unmanaged.
In summary, the collective service failures above result in a finding of maladministration for how the landlord handled the residents reports of ASB.

The landlord’s handling of the residents complaint.

Although the residents complaint centred around ASB reports, the landlord still should have registered a complaint at his request as he clearly stated he wished to “start the complaints process” on 26 January 2021 and was receiving “no assistance” from the landlord. Its response to the residents initial request to log a complaint was not collaborative or helpful, advising the “housing hub” could not resolve the matter so a case was raised. It was not made clear at the time if this case was an ASB case or a complaints case, regardless, this would have felt that the landlord was not taking the residents request seriously. Furthermore the landlord should have raised a stage 1 complaint following subsequent communications from this service. This service was provided with internal communications from the landlord where it said it was not logging a complaint due to it being about ASB, although the landlord has said this was due to a policy in practise at the time which was a “lessons learnt” outcome of the complaint and has now been changed, the complaint handling code at the time clearly defined what a complaint was as did the landlords own complaint policy. This is a clear failure on behalf of the landlord as its staff did not recognise what the resident was complaining about. This service has concerns of the wider complaint culture of the landlord and a wider order has been made in this respect to ensure all staff consistently recognise a complaint.
This delay resulted in the resident contacting this service on numerous occasions before a complaint was raised at Stage 1. It took 3 communications from this service and a complaint handling failure order being issued before the landlord acted on the request to log a complaint. This took 5 months, which is an unacceptable amount of time and no doubt would have caused avoidable frustration for the resident.
The landlord did not issue its final stage 1 complaint response until 20 August 2021, this was after it issued a detailed acknowledgement and a first response on 26 July 2021. This was 6 months after this Service originally asked it to provide a response which is unreasonable and far outside the 10 working day timeframe stated in its complaints policy. In addition to providing multiple staged responses at stage 1, the landlord gave conflicting escalation routes in each of its responses. Its final response advised of 28 days to escalate the stage 1 complaint whereas its first response prior to this advised of the residents right to escalate to this service.
The landlords response at stage 1 was split amongst its 3 letters to the resident which was not a clear way to communicate its investigation. Ultimately, the majority of the residents complaint was included in a detailed acknowledgment letter which the landlord used to respond to some of the complaint points. It advised it had no reports recorded from the resident for over a year and it was not aware of the ASB which the resident reported to this service. The landlord failed to investigate this part of the residents complaint, it failed to gather information from the resident of when ASB had been reported and why in cases where it had been reported it was not recorded on its system. The landlord failed to use the complaints process to carry out a thorough investigation and respond accordingly.
The landlords focus at stage 1 was to put things right for the resident which is what is expected of a complaints process however, as it did not carry out a full investigation it failed to do this. It reiterated numerous times that it could not take action yet it advised it wished to visit alongside the police and neighbouring landlord. Although it is seen that the landlord had good intentions, its way of communicating these intentions conflicted with its stated inability to take action. This compromised the effectiveness of the message it was trying to convey.
This was further evidenced in the landlords communications with the resident after its final stage 1 response, where the landlord and resident went back and forth about an extension to escalate the complaint. No communication has been provided between November 2021 and May 2022 when the resident contacted the landlord to escalate his complaint therefore it would have been reasonable for the landlord to accept the residents email in May 2022 as a late escalation request. However the resident had to contact this service again in order for a stage 2 complaint to be raised and responded to. This is unacceptable, the level of intervention from this service in the residents complaint was exceptional and caused the resident mounting frustration and distress whilst trying to get his landlord to help in this situation.
Once the resident had emailed to escalate his complaint on 22 May 2022 the landlord should have acted in line with its complaints policy and provided a stage two complaint response within 15 working days and kept him informed and updated of any delays in providing it. However, the landlord failed to do so. Following further requests from this Service the landlord eventually escalated the complaint on 2 November 2022 and provided its stage two complaint response on 1 December 2022 which was 21working days since it raised the stage 2 complaint and 135 working days since the residents request to escalate his complaint. The landlord failed to follow its own policy as its response was far outside the 15 working day response time stated in its complaints policy and outside the 20 working day response time set out in this Service’s code.
The complaint handling code, which was in place at the time of the residents complaint, says effective dispute resolution requires a process designed to resolve complaints, where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out its actions it has already taken or intends to take to put thing right. Any remedy offered must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result. The landlord offered an apology in its stage 2 response for the delay but did not advise why the delay occurred or how it would stop this from happening again. This is because the landlord failed to investigate fully what had gone wrong and then failed to offer any remedy for this failing taking into account the level of detriment caused to the resident. Throughout the complaints process the landlord failed to deal with its resident in an empathetic manner, failed to acknowledge what the resident was complaining about and responded in a matter of fact way. The residents escalation request was extremely detailed and although included diary sheets completed retrospectively, they showed what the resident was currently experiencing at the property, yet the landlords response simply reiterated he should consider approaching the neighbouring landlord direct. This lack of empathy and consideration for what was being experienced would have caused the resident further upset and distress and damaged the landlord/resident relationship further.
When considered overall, the landlords management of the residents complaint which took nearly 2 years to fully respond too, and the level of intervention required from this service throughout the residents complaint, it is determined to be severe maladministration.

This service has also considered the landlords record keeping.

This service has concerns surrounding the record keeping of the landlord in this case. Specifically that evidence has not been seen of its responses to the resident following his reports of ASB. Internal emails have been seen that suggest the resident emailed individual staff members which could be the reason that nothing was recorded, however it has a responsibility to ensure its staff are aware of its record keeping expectations and procedures.
This service would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact and evidence relating to each casefile. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail and ensure that it has a good understanding of its communications and actions with a resident. Effective landlord management recording practises require accurate, detailed records to be made and be easily available so that cohesive management of services often provided across several departments and external agencies can be delivered.
Taking the above into consideration, the landlord’s record keeping is either inadequate or all documentation, contact notes, correspondence, internal emails or call records relating to this case have not been provided as requested by this Service. In this case the resident provided a large volume of correspondence he had sent to the landlord however the landlord was unable to provide the same level of response. This lack of evidence is further compounded by the brief and extremely delayed final response to the formal complaint, which did not provide any detail on the actions taken, nor address what had gone wrong and how it could be put right. Taking all the above factors into consideration a finding of maladministration has been made and relevant orders are detailed below to reflect this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the residents reports of ASB (anti social behaviour).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord failed to reasonably advocate for the resident when he reported ASB, it failed to carry out a risk assessment, it failed to communicate effectively with the resident and failed to produce an action plan prior to any complaint being made. The landlord failed to fully understand its role in the residents situation which led to a long standing dispute being allowed to develop causing distress to the resident.
The landlord did not accept the residents complaint, despite numerous interventions from this service at each stage, this caused the resident time and trouble pursuing his complaint. Once raised, the landlord provided multiple responses at stage 1 all significantly outside its target timescales which led to confusion and growing frustration for the resident. It failed to escalate the residents complaint without intervention from this service again and then failed to evidence an adequate investigative approach, failed to respond in an empathetic manner and failed to respond within the timescale given.
The landlord’s record keeping is either inadequate or all documentation, contact notes, correspondence, internal emails or call records relating to this case have not been provided as requested by this Service. In this case the resident provided a large volume of correspondence he had sent to the landlord however the landlord was unable to provide the same level of response.

Orders and recommendations

Within the next 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior member of staff to send a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £600 for its failures in poor management of the residents ASB reports.
3. Pay the resident £1000 for the distress, frustration, time and trouble caused by its poor management of the residents complaint.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must contact the resident to ascertain if he is still experiencing the ASB and if so, produce an action plan with the resident, reflecting the proposals previously submitted by the resident, to show how it can support him in resolving the issues he is experiencing.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must initiate and complete a strategic review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan that must be shared with this Service outlining at minimum its review findings in respect of:
1. Its intention to ensure that complaint procedures are followed, all staff are fully aware of when an expression of dissatisfaction must to be recorded as a complaint and what additional oversight measures it has out into place to ensure that complaint responses are issued within its timescales.
2. Its intention to ensure it works cohesively with external agencies when a perpetrator of ASB is not a resident.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must initiate and complete a self-assessment using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023).