Peabody Trust (202215552)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215552

Peabody Trust

16 January 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:
1. handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and fly tipping.
2. handling of the complaint and its response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
The Service has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a shared owner of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom house.
The landlord became a subsidiary of another landlord on 1 April 2022, and merged to form a single housing association in April 2023.
Prior to becoming a subsidiary, the landlord’s ASB procedure set out that the landlord would:
1. be victim-centred and would set out clearly what it could do to resolve the issues.
2. risk assess all personal ASB reports to assess the vulnerability and risk to the person reporting the ASB, and tailor support.
3. interview those making reports of ASB and finalise an action plan, which it would send to the victim of ASB to sign.
4. interview the alleged perpetrator, once the victim had been informed of this intention.
5. review action plans continuously.
6. work with the police, local authority and environmental health noise and nuisance service.
7. work with its estate management team to respond to fly tipping concerns.
The ASB procedure stated that noise from everyday life was not considered ASB. It set out that if the landlord received reports linked to lifestyle, it was important for it to understand the issues and agree a response with the victim. It stated that it would direct the victim to the local authority when there were loud noise/music reports, who could help in collecting information/evidence. The ASB procedure also stated that the landlord should manage expectations and make clear the different ways of resolving ASB, and that eviction was unlikely to be the most appropriate action.
The applicable ASB procedure since the April 2022 also set out the need to agree an action plan and complete risk assessments. This also said that the landlord would attend community trigger meetings as required. Both procedures outline a range of interventions the landlord could consider, such as:
1. warning letters.
2. acceptable behaviour agreements/contracts.
3. mediation.
The landlord’s complaints policy from the time of the events set out that it would investigate and provide a response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It states that if the resident remained unhappy with this response, then the complaint should be passed to the customer experience team for a response to be provided at stage 2. The policy outlined circumstances when a complaint may not be escalated as follows:
1. the reasons for escalation are unrelated to the original complaint.
2. the request has not been submitted within a reasonable time.
3. the appeal relates to an insurance claim.

Summary of events

The resident has provided email correspondence with a housing officer for the landlord from 29 July 2021. In this she queried how she should return diary sheets she had completed. The housing officer requested that she scan or post these and that she would get back to the resident once she had received the diaries.
The next related email correspondence provided by the resident was from 28 February and 1 March 2022, at which time she contacted the same housing officer. She said she had issues with her neighbour (Ms Q) using her parking spaces. She said this was adding to the “mental stress” she had experienced from Ms Q for 3 years.
On 1 March 2022 the resident sent another email to a different officer of the landlord. She said she understood the previous housing officer had left. She asked that someone call her about issues she was having with Ms Q. On 23 March 2022 the resident also contacted the local authority about noise nuisance from her neighbour. The local authority directed the resident to report noise issues to the landlord. It said it had requested that the landlord contact the resident.
On 28 March 2022 the resident sent an email to a community safety officer for the landlord (Officer C), referring to their meeting that day about her ASB concerns. Officer C noted in a subsequent timeline that during this meeting the resident:
1. reported issues of fly tipping by Ms Q and provided photos of refuse items in the car park, and diary sheets dating back to 2020 which detailed fly tipping.
2. provided 4 pieces of footage from a camera doorbell.
3. reported an incident when Ms Q had used racist language towards her.
4. provided email correspondence she had with the local authority about her noise report.
The diary sheets provided by the resident noted an incident from May 2020 when she said she was racially abused by Ms Q and her partner.
Officer C later noted in a timeline that she had reviewed diary sheets provided and that these consisted of low-level nuisance/some not ASB and “did not substantiate much action” other than asking Ms Q to tidy her parking area. It is not clear when the timeline was created by Officer C.
On 30 March 2022 Officer C wrote to the resident. She said:
1. she would look through the files the landlord held.
2. She had “obtained” a photo of items left in the car park area.
3. she would call and meet with the resident to discuss the next steps.
In response that day the resident confirmed she would speak to Officer C following day. The landlord’s file does not detail any subsequent discussion with the resident. However, on 31 March 2022 Officer C made a request to the police for information about the ASB the resident had reported. She said the resident had reported general ASB, racial comments made towards her and arguments in the street. The landlord subsequently noted in a timeline that it received a response from the police, but no record of this is contained within documents provided.
In a subsequent timeline of her actions Officer C noted that she had spoken to Ms Q in April 2022, who had agreed to tidy her parking area and had denied making racist comments towards the resident. No contemporaneous records were provided by the landlord of this discussion with Ms Q.
Officer C also noted in a timeline that she made a mediation referral on 20 April 2022 after both parties had agreed to participate. The landlord provided a completed mediation referral, but it is undated. It provided no contemporaneous record of the discussions with either party about mediation.
The next recorded contact was on 17 and 18 May 2022 when the resident emailed Officer C about mediation with Ms Q. She said:
1. She had been contacted by the mediation service.
2. Ms Q’s behaviour had become worse since she had been contacted about mediation.
3. She was concerned about mediation with Ms Q, who she said had been “outright racist” to her and her 3-year-old daughter.
4. She was becoming concerned that she was not getting any help from the landlord.
Officer C responded to the resident later that day. She told the resident that an ASB case was open, and that the landlord would do all it could to support her.
On 6 June 2022 the resident sent an email to Officer C. She said she had heard screaming and shouting from Ms Q at 3am over the weekend which had awoken her daughter. She also said Ms Q had purchased a burger van and that rubbish was everywhere.
Officer C responded to the resident the following day. She said she was arranging for a housing officer to visit and that this was a matter of “high importance”.
The resident sent a further email to Officer C on 14 June 2022. She said she had been in contact with the police about the situation with her neighbour as the noise was affecting her daughter’s mental health. The resident said Ms Q was using her parking bays and had left rubbish that was a fire hazard. She attached photos.
Officer C responded to the resident the following day. She said that some of the issues raised would be better dealt with by a housing officer. She said she had forwarded the resident’s email to a housing officer who would meet with the resident and Officer C the next day.
The resident confirmed in email correspondence that she met with Officer C on 16 June 2022. She also sent Officer C details of further incidents on 19 June and 12 July 2022:
1. She attached footage she said showed Ms Q and her partner shouting and screaming at each other.
2. She sent a crime reference number for an incident, when she said she had been abused by Ms Q in front of her daughter.
In her timeline Officer C noted she had spoken to the resident on 12 July 2022 who said that she would not do mediation and wanted Ms Q evicted. The landlord provided no contemporaneous record of this discussion.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 July 2022. She complained of threatening and intimidating ASB from Ms Q and that she felt “badly let down” by the landlord. She said:
1. ASB from Ms Q had developed over 3 years and the landlord had failed to intervene.
2. She had experienced repeated threats and racial abuse from Ms Q.
3. The landlord’s officers had underplayed the ASB.
4. She had agreed to mediation, but Ms Q had declined this and continued her behaviour.
5. The landlord had not contacted Ms Q as she had made excuses to avoid engaging.
The resident said she had an auto immune disease which was exacerbated by stress, and that her mental health had declined. She said she felt “abandoned” by the landlord and her daughter’s development was being impeded as she feared playing in the garden.
On 21 July 2022 the landlord noted internally that:
1. an ASB case had been opened on 31 March 2022.
2. it made a request to police for information on 4 April 2022.
3. Officer C had encountered difficulty contacting Ms Q and had made attempts with door knocks and visits.
4. It had made a referral for mediation and was still awaiting allocation of a mediator.
5. If Ms Q did not engage it would make clear further action would be taken.
6. Officer C would follow up with a visit in the following week to ensure both parties were happy with mediation and to liaise with other neighbours to gain a better understanding of the ASB.
7. Officer C was to call the resident to discuss what else the landlord could do to support her, and this would include a referral to its wellbeing team.
On 21 July 2022 Officer C noted internally that, as there were no new instances of ASB, the case had not been her priority. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 22 July 2022. It said it would aim to respond within 10 working days.
On 25 July 2022 the resident sent a further email to Officer C. She questioned whether Officer C had been able to gain entry to Ms Q’s property. She also provided Officer C with details of another resident she said had concerns about ASB by Ms Q. Officer C responded the following day. She said:
1. she had arranged to meet Ms Q on 29 July 2022.
2. she would contact the other neighbour in advance of that meeting if the resident forwarded contact details.
On 26 July 2022 the resident responded providing contact details for the other resident. She said she had spoken to 2 other residents who had complained about Ms Q
On 29 July 2022 Officer C told the resident that she had passed the ASB case to managers within the landlord’s community safety team. She said that one of these managers would be in contact with the resident in the next week.
Officer C noted that she sent emails to her managers on 29 July and 2 August 2022, in which she asked for help with the case. She said:
1. Mediation had been offered as she considered this would give the best result.
2. The resident had complained about car parking and rubbish in parking bays, which a housing officer was due to deal with. However, that officer had now left.
3. She had encountered difficulties contacting Ms Q.
4. She was on leave the following week and asked that someone else contact the resident.
On 9 August 2022 the resident contacted the landlord again. She said:
1. she was yet to receive a response to her complaint.
2. She struggled to get a response from the landlord’s officers.
3. She had contacted the local authority to activate a community trigger.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 10 August 2022. She questioned when notices would be sent to Ms Q about the ongoing fly tipping which she considered was a health and safety issue. She also asked whether the landlord had contacted other neighbours about the ASB concerns. She also said she had not heard from a manager at the landlord, as agreed by Officer C.
Also on 10 August 2022 the local authority sent the resident an email. It said it had spoken to Officer C and that she would fully engage with the community trigger.
On 2 September 2022 an ASB case review (community trigger) meeting was held about the resident’s case. This was attended by the resident, the police and the local authority. The landlord was absent. At this time the resident stated that:
1. issues with her neighbour had been ongoing for 3 years.
2. ASB included loud telephone calls at night, regular police attendance, screaming, verbal and racial abuse and fly tipping.
On 5 September 2022 the local authority told the resident that the landlord had said Officer C was unwell on the day of the community trigger meeting. It said Officer C’s supervisor would contact the resident directly to apologise. The following day the local authority told the resident it was to undertake a joint visit with Officer C to complete door-to-door visits in the area.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 7 September 2022. It apologised for the delays in responding to her complaint. It said:
1. The resident’s ASB case had been opened after it received reports from the resident of abusive and threatening behaviour by Ms Q.
2. It acknowledged that there had been little activity on the case between April and June 2022, at which time the case was moved for mediation.
3. There had been a delay on the part of the local authority in allocating a mediation officer.
4. Its ASB officer had made multiple attempts to resolve the situation between the resident and Ms Q but faced challenges arranging appointments and gaining access.
5. After further reports from the resident the ASB officer liaised with the resident and raised a community trigger.
6. A safeguarding referral was raised on 17 August 2022 and, following this, a community trigger meeting was set.
7. The landlord did not attend the community trigger meeting, which “further exacerbated the problem” and prompted the resident to “lose faith in the process”.
8. It had spoken to a local authority about the community trigger, and an action plan had been created, which would be communicated to the resident’s ASB officer when she returned from leave.
The landlord apologised for the lack of communication and inconvenience caused to the resident. It assured her that the necessary feedback and training had been provided to relevant people to ensure it could prevent this happening again. It said that as a result of the complaint:
1. It had carried out further staff training on record keeping and staff had been reminded about the importance of maintaining clear, accurate and up to date records.
2. It had spoken to senior management to reinforce the service levels expected and the obligation to provide a good service to residents.
The landlord said it considered compensation was due to the resident to address the failings it had identified. It awarded £250, made up of:
1. £150 for distress and inconvenience.
2. £50 for failure to follow process and attend the community trigger.
3. £50 for the delay in the complaint response.
Officer C noted in a timeline of her actions that she had completed a door-to-door exercise along with an officer from the local authority on 8 September 2022. She noted that no issues were reported other than from one other resident, who said Ms Q and her partner had fights which sounded violent.
The resident responded to the landlord on 13 September 2022. She said she found its offer of compensation an “insult”. She said:
1. While her ASB case was opened in March 2022, she had been making ASB reports since May 2020, without response from the landlord.
2. After the case was passed to a manager at the end of July 2022, he had failed to make any contact and she was still waited for this contact.
3. A community trigger only happened because she had requested the local authority do so.
The resident sent the landlord a report on 4 October 2022 of Ms Q and her partner shouting and screaming at each other. She said this had woken her daughter up and the noise had not stopped until 10.30pm.
On 7 October 2022 the resident told the local authority that the landlord had contacted her again to offer mediation. She said she had told the landlord this had been arranged before, but that Ms Q had not participated in it.
On the same day the local authority wrote to the resident. It noted that a second meeting had taken place that day but that the landlord had again not attended. It noted that:
1. the landlord had advised it was unable to attend the meeting only after it had begun.
2. all professionals in attendance felt there was insufficient evidence to progress enforcement action.
3. noise assessments had not begun.
4. the landlord had not been present to discuss options.
On 10 October 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord again. She said Officer C had failed to attend a second community trigger meeting and that it appeared the landlord considered “the situation it had left her and her daughter in is a joke”.
On 12 October 2022 the resident told the landlord that her daughter’s school had been referred for further support by her school because of the impact of the situation with Ms Q.
In an internal email on 13 October 2022 Officer C noted that she had spoken to the resident and had told her:
1. The landlord would not be seeking to evict Ms Q as there were no grounds to do so.
2. The police had no concerns.
On 17 October 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord. She said:
1. Officer C had contacted her on 13 October 2022 to advise that the landlord had decided to do nothing about the ASB reports she had made about Ms Q.
2. Officer C said she had attempted to contact Ms Q but then told the resident she did not have time to do the case and had passed the case to a manager. She said that a manager had “refused” to contact her.
3. Officer C had not arranged for flying tipping to be removed and rubbish was still present.
4. Lack of communication from the landlord had caused inconvenience, physical and mental pain for her and her daughter.
The landlord wrote to the resident that day. It said it had spoken the Officer C and that:
1. after reviewing the circumstances of the complaint, it agreed with the decision made and the compensation offered.
2. this was reasonable and in line with its complaints and compensation policy.
3. there was not enough evidence to move forward, and that the resident should continue to report further issues so it could investigate these.
4. if she was unhappy with the stage 1 complaint response, she could request to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
The resident responded to the landlord later that day. She said:
1. Officer C was “inadequate for the task” and she wanted another ASB officer as a point of contact.
2. She questioned what evidence the landlord needed of ASB and racism before acting.
3. She could not understand why her complaint had not already been moved to stage 2 of the complaints process.
On 18 October 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said it could not see a reason to escalate her complaint to stage 2, and so refused her request. It said:
1. It agreed with the decision made a stage 1 and the compensation offered.
2. The evidence the resident had provided was not enough to remove Ms Q from her property.
3. It considered it had investigated the resident’s concerns correctly with the evidence provided.
4. It had tried to improve the relationship between the resident and Ms Q through mediation, but this had not been successful.
5. It was sorry the resident had concerns about Officer C, and this had been fed back to her management team. It said it had asked that fly tipping be removed as soon as possible to resolve this part of the complaint.
6. The resident had exhausted its complaints procedure and could now contact the Ombudsman if she was dissatisfied with the outcome.
On 7 November 2022 the resident sent an email to the local authority. She said that rubbish in the parking bays was still present. She said the landlord previously sent Ms Q a warning letter about the rubbish in March 2022. She said she had waited for a manager from the landlord to contact her for several months, and that Officer C did not return her calls.
On 7 November 2022 the landlord attended a community trigger meeting about the resident’s ASB concerns, along with the police and local authority. Following this meeting the local authority sent the landlord an email about the resident’s outstanding concerns about rubbish in parking bays.
The community trigger action plan of 7 November 2022 noted that:
1. Officer C had reviewed information gathered and that no tenancy breaches had been identified.
2. Officer C was to confirm if fly tipping had been removed.
3. Officer C had confirmed that no warnings had been issued to Ms Q in the last 12 months.
4. Officer C said that mediation had been re-offered but there appeared to be “no appetite” from either party to progress this option.
5. The local authority was to contact the resident about a noise assessment.
On 9 November 2022 Officer C sent an internal email about the case. She said:
1. She had not found any evidence of ASB from the resident’s neighbour.
2. The resident had requested a community trigger as she did not believe the landlord had handled the case correctly.
3. She had found no evidence that any warning letters had been sent by the landlord to Ms Q.
4. Items the resident had reported as fly tipping were in Ms Q’s allocated parking space.
5. She had asked a neighbourhood specialist to look at fly tipping and she had seen no issues. But it was possible the neighbourhood specialist had “mislocated” the car park.
The landlord’s estate management records show it raised fly tipping in the car park behind the resident’s property on 16 November 2022. On 17 November 2022 a neighbourhood officer for the landlord sent an internal email. She said that she had checked the area and that:
1. Items were in Ms Q’s parking space, which she said she would “not describe as fly tipping”.
2. The space had a food trailer parked in, with part of the trailer leaning against Ms Q’s fence.
3. She had spoken to Ms Q about moving items that were leaning against her fence.
On 1 December 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord. She said:
1. Fly tipping was still in parking bays. This included a burger van that had been there for more than 12 months.
2. She had been unable to use her parking bays for 3 years because of the rubbish and burger van.
3. Incidents were still occurring, but she was reluctant to report them to Officer C as she did not respond.
On 6 December 2022 the local authority wrote to the resident following a community trigger meeting that day, which was also attended by the landlord. It said it had decided the community trigger meetings were no longer adding value and that no incidents had been reported in the latest review period. The resident responded to the local authority the same day. She said that she had stopped reporting issues with Ms Q to the landlord but that nothing had changed.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 December 2022. It said:
1. 2 parking spaces were next to Ms Q’s back gate, and 2 spaces next to the resident’s back gate.
2. The burger van was parked in bays next to Ms Q’s back gate.
3. It had asked for plans from its legal team to establish ownership of these spaces.
4. It had received no reports of ASB from the resident for 2 months.
5. It had reviewed records and noted that Officer C had missed 8 calls from the resident over the last 9 months. Of these:
  1. 5 calls were returned the same day.
  2. 2 calls were returned within 48 hours.
  3. 1 call was not returned.
6. The resident should let it know if she experienced future communication issues with Officer C.
7. It apologised for the inconvenience caused.
On 10 March 2023 after the resident had referred her complaint to us, the landlord sent an email to her asking if she wanted her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. In response the same day the resident questioned why the landlord had changed its position, after previously refusing to escalate her complaint. We have seen no evidence the landlord responded to this email.
On 24 March 2023 the landlord noted a conversation with the resident, in which it told her that her noise nuisance concerns were being handled by the local authority’s environmental health team. It said it would contact her to confirm the status of her ASB case. The resident told us that she did not hear further from the landlord about this.
The landlord has told us that its ASB case is closed. However, the resident has continued to report to the landlord further incidents involving Ms Q, such as:
1. In January 2023 Ms Q’s partner swore at her repeatedly.
2. In February 2023 Ms Q had been abusive and shouted at another neighbour and that her daughter had been woken up by this
3. In June 2023 the resident reported screaming and shouting from Ms Q’s property that had happened at 4am.
4. In August 2023 Ms Q was parking an untaxed vehicle in her car park space.
The resident told us that she did not think the landlord had done anything to safeguard her daughter. She said she wanted compensation to enable her to move from the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB and fly tipping by Ms Q since 2020. She has provided an email she sent to the landlord in July 2021 about returning diary sheets. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord received the diary sheets about the resident’s ASB concerns until March 2022. For this reason, the focus of the investigation will be on the landlord handling of reports the landlord received between March 2022 and 18 October 2022, when it refused to escalate the complaint.
It is acknowledged that the resident has continued to report issues about Ms Q to landlord. However, it would be appropriate for the landlord to have the opportunity to consider any concerns about its handling of these later reports through its formal complaints procedure. Should the resident remain dissatisfied following this, she could then bring any complaint about this back to us.

Handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and fly tipping

The landlord met with the resident on 28 March 2022 about her ASB concerns. This is confirmed by email correspondence from the resident and a timeline later completed by Officer C. While it is unclear which contact by the resident instigated this meeting, it is apparent that she raised during this meeting her concerns about noise, Ms Q’s using of the parking space and verbal and racial abuse.Although Officer C set out in a subsequent timeline what was discussed and provided to her at this meeting, it would have been appropriate for a contemporaneous record of this meeting to have been made. There is no evidence that such a record was made, and this is a failing.
In its stage 1 response of September 2022 the landlord stated it had opened an ASB case in March 2022 after receiving the resident’s reports of abusive and threatening behaviour from Ms Q. The resident reported abuse, including racial abuse from Ms Q to the landlord. In view of the nature of the reports it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have completed a risk assessment and set out an action plan following the meeting in March 2022. This should have set out how it was to address the resident’s concerns about verbal abuse, noise and fly tipping issues. There is no evidence this action was completed during or following this meeting, contrary to the landlord’s ASB procedure. Such action would have helped the landlord to establish and assess vulnerability and risk to the resident and tailor support it offered. It would also have provided the landlord with the opportunity to clearly set out what action it was able to take about each of the resident’s concerns and manage her expectations about the possible outcomes.
While Officer C later noted that she had spoken to Ms Q about clearing items left in her car parking space, the landlord’s records contain no contemporaneous note of this. Nor do these record the discussions with the resident or Ms Q about mediation. This is a further record keeping failure. Not only would clear records show what the landlord had done to meet its obligations to intervene, it would have provided evidence should further action be necessary to resolve issues.
In its complaint response of September 2022, the landlord acknowledged that little action had taken place between April and June 2022. There is no evidence that it made any contact with the resident between 28 March and 18 May 2022. In addition, while it later noted difficulty in contacting Ms Q, it did not record what action it had taken to attempt do so. That was a further failing. If it had experienced persistent issues communicating with Ms Q, it would have been reasonable for it to consider whether other methods of communication would be appropriate. But there is no evidence the landlord attempted or explored this, and it is unclear why it did not.
The landlord’s records do not provide any clear evidence that it communicated appropriately with Ms Q about the issues raised by the resident. While Officer C recorded in a timeline that she had spoken to Ms Q about clearing rubbish from the parking space and about the resident’s report of racial abuse, there is no contemporaneous record of this, nor of any subsequent communication with the resident about this action. The landlord’s ASB procedure stated that it would keep victims updated about the progress of its work. Without communication, the resident would be left with the impression that the landlord had done little or nothing to act on her reports.
Although discussions with the resident and Ms Q were not recorded, it is apparent from the resident’s email correspondence on 17 May 2022 she had been contacted about mediation. It is also clear that she had concerns about this. Although, again, there is no note from the time of the conversation, Officer C noted that on 12 July 2022 the resident had said she did not want to try mediation. On 20 July 2022 the resident set out in her complaint that she understood Ms Q had declined mediation, although there is nothing on file to suggest that was the case. But there were clear indications that the parties may not be happy to proceed with mediation. In these circumstances it would have been reasonable for the landlord to do as it set out on 21 July and check whether that was the case. But there is no evidence of any steps it took to do so. If one or both parties was unwilling to proceed with mediation, then it would then have been appropriate for the landlord to consider what other actions or interventions may be appropriate to attempt to resolve issues. For instance, the landlord could have considered whether to refer the resident to the local authority for assistance in collecting evidence of noise nuisance. Instead, the landlord re-offered mediation again in November 2022. There is no evidence the landlord considered/offered shuttle mediation. While parties may not have been prepared to sit together in a room, shuttle mediation could have been a reasonable option. The landlord could then have explored a good neighbour agreement, which was an intervention set out in its ASB procedure.
It is noted that Officer C said on 21 July 2022 that this case had not been a priority as there were no new instances of ASB, but this took no account of the resident’s reports of incidents on 19 June and 12 July 2022. She said that during one of these she had been abused by Ms Q in front of her daughter. It is acknowledged that Officer C would need to balance work on the resident’s case with others in her workload. But it was also reasonable for the landlord to communicate appropriately with those involved, take steps that it had agreed, and escalate when further assistance was needed. Officer C told the resident she had arranged to meet with Ms Q on 29 July 2022 and said she would contact another neighbour in advance of this. But there is no evidence of any attempts by Officer C to do so, or of a meeting with Ms Q. There is also no evidence the landlord communicated with the resident about this. Nor is there evidence the landlord made any referral to its wellbeing team for the resident as it said it would on 21 July 2022.
The resident said later that the lack of communication had caused her inconvenience and “physical and mental pain”. The landlord’s failure to communicate appropriately with the resident and to make a referral to its wellbeing team is evidence of a failing to be victim-centred in its approach. This was contrary to its ASB procedure. There is little to demonstrate that it clearly set out to the resident what it could do to resolve the issues she had reported or kept her appropriately updated about the action it had taken.
Evidence seen suggests that Officer C had requested assistance from her managers at the end of July 2022, noting difficulties in contacting Ms Q, and in dealing with the resident’s concerns about rubbish left in the car park. She also told the resident at this time that she had passed the case to a manager. Yet the resident said that no manager made contact, and there is no evidence of any attempts to do so. That failing can only have been compounded by the landlord’s absence from the community trigger meeting in September 2022. It is noted that the Officer C was unable to attend through sickness, but it would have been appropriate for the landlord to explore what it could do in these circumstances, such as arranging for another officer’s attendance. That there is no evidence of this demonstrated a lack of commitment by the landlord to engage fully with the community trigger. Its absence from this meeting was a significant failing and can only have hampered the effectiveness of the process. While the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its absence from this meeting during its complaint response, there is no evidence that it tried to make immediate contact with the resident to apologise. It would have been reasonable for it to take such action in the circumstances.
While Officer C later noted that she had completed a door-to-door exercise there is again no contemporaneous record of this, a further record keeping failure. There is also no indication the landlord updated the resident that it had completed this action.
It is unclear, from records seen, what notice the landlord was given of the meeting of 7 October 2022. However,the email sent to the resident by the local authority indicates the landlord advised it was unable to attend only after the meeting had begun. Its absence from the meeting was another failing to engage in the process, which can only have undermined the resident’s confidence that it was taking the issues she had reported seriously.
As noted earlier, the landlord did not keep clear, contemporaneous records of actions it took to contact Ms Q about the car park and fly tipping issues raised. While Officer C later stated that Ms Q had agreed in April to clear rubbish from the car park by June 2022 the resident had reported a burger van in parking bays and rubbish, she considered was a fire hazard. Officer C acknowledged this report and said this was of “high importance” and that she would arrange for a housing officer to visit. However, there is no evidence of any further significant action to address this concern until 17 November 2022. At this time an officer for the landlord visited and noted the items were in Ms Q’s parking bays and were not considered fly tipping.
While it told the resident on 7 December 2022 that it considered the items were in Ms Q’s parking bays, it would also have been appropriate for it to explain that it did not consider these to be fly tipping. In addition, although it told the resident that it had requested plans to establish the ownership of the bays, it is unclear what action it took following this. There is no evidence it clarified this issue or communicated any findings to the resident. Given the resident’s persisting concerns about Ms Q’s use of the parking bays it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have done so. It was aware she had reports issues going back to 2020. Writing to both parties about the ownership and the use of the parking spaces would have been an appropriate intervention that it might have assisted in managing the ongoing situation.
There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports and her reports of fly tipping. It failed to:
1. risk assess or complete an action plan to set out what it would do to resolve the issues raised.
2. be victim-centred and maintain appropriate communication with the resident about actions it was taking or make a referral to its wellbeing team.
3. check in July 2022 whether the parties were to proceed with mediation and make timely consideration of other interventions.
4. complete actions it had agreed such as contacting a neighbour for which the resident provided contact details.
5. contact the resident after telling her the case would be passed to a manager.
6. take action to respond to the resident’s fly tipping concerns for 5 months.
7. clarify ownership and use of the car park spaces with the parties.
8. attend 2 of the community trigger meetings.
During its complaint response the landlord acknowledged a lack of activity on the case between April and June 2022, a lack of communication with the resident and its failure to attend the community trigger meeting in September 2022. But it did not acknowledge the lack of timely action to resolve the resident’s fly tipping concerns, or its failure to make timely consideration of other interventions that might have helped in managing the issues the resident had reported.
The landlord offered the resident £200 during its complaint response – £150 for distress and inconvenience and £50 for its failure to attend the community trigger. This award does not appropriately recognise the impact upon the resident of the failings identified. With consideration of the circumstances of the case, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an increased award has been ordered.

The handling of the complaint and response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct

The resident complained to the landlord on 20 July 2022 but did not receive a response until 7 September 2022, more than a month outside timeframes set out in its complaints policy. Despite the landlord informing the resident it would aim to respond in 10 working days, it made no attempt to let her know it would not meet this target. While the landlord appropriately acknowledged this delay in its eventual response and awarded £50 for this, it would have been appropriate for it to agree an extension with the resident in advance, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It was poor management of the resident’s expectations, and it evidently caused her frustration at a time she said she was struggling to get a response from officers.
In its complaint response the landlord acknowledged some failings. However, as outlined above, it failed to identify and address all its shortcomings in the handling of the resident’s ASB concerns, such as its failure to complete a risk assessment or action plan at any time, its lack of consideration of other interventions after the resident raised concerns about mediation. It also failed to identify that it had not taken steps to address the resident’s fly tipping issues. It is noted, however that the landlord had acknowledged and identified learning in respect of its record keeping on the case. It is noted that the landlord said that further staff training had been put in place. This was a positive step but would have been more meaningful had the landlord set out in greater detail what issues it had identified in record keeping.
In responding to the landlord’s stage 1 consideration, the resident highlighted that the landlord had erroneously said it had raised the community trigger, rather than the resident. She also highlighted her concerns that:
1. she had reported ASB issues since May 2020.
2. she had received no contact following Officer C informing her the case had been passed to a manager at the end of July.
3. the landlord had failed to attend a second community trigger meeting in October 2022.
4. fly tipping had not been removed as Officer C had promised.
Despite these issues not having been addressed during its stage 1 response, the landlord refused the resident’s request for the matter to be escalated to stage 2. It stated that this was because it agreed with the decision made and the compensation offered at stage 1. But this response left a number of the resident’s concerns unanswered. It acknowledged what the resident said about Officer C not acting on the fly tipping report. While it said it would ensure the report was acted on it made no attempt to explain or apologise for not doing so earlier. In addition, it made no acknowledgement of what the resident said about its failure to attend the second community trigger meeting. If there was a reason for this, it was an opportunity to explain this to the resident.
Its refusal to escalate the resident’s complaint was contrary to its complaints procedure and resulted in a failure to respond fully to the issues she raised. This would no doubt have caused the resident frustration. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and respond to what the resident considered a factual inaccuracy about who had raised the community trigger.
While it is noted that the landlord later took steps to appropriately consider and respond to the resident’s concerns that Officer C did not return her calls, at no time did it address what she said about a manager failing to contact her. This was despite the resident repeatedly raising this. Not providing a response to issues and refusing to escalate would have given the impression that it was dismissing or ignoring her concerns.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. It erroneously refused to escalate her complaint and failed to appropriately address all her concerns. Its poor handling of her complaint would have compounded earlier failings in its handling of her case. While the landlord awarded £50 for its delayed response this does not adequately recognise the impact of its poor complaint handling. We have identified further failings which were not acknowledged by the landlord. With reference to the individual circumstances of this case and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, a further award has been ordered.

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 and fly tipping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and its response to concerns about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord failed to take appropriate steps to risk assess and complete an action plan to set out what steps it could take to resolve issues. It failed to keep the resident appropriately informed of its actions or give timely consideration of other interventions. It failed to engage appropriately in the community trigger process by missing 2 meetings. It delayed in addressing fly tipping concerns raised by the resident in June 2022, and failed to appropriately clarify ownership and use of car park spaces.
The landlord delayed in responding to the complaint and did not agree an extension with the resident. It did not identify all its failings in its handling of the resident’s ASB and fly tipping reports. It erroneously refused to escalate the resident’s complaint, while failing to address all the concerns she had raised.
The landlord repeatedly failed to make appropriate record of meetings and discussions with the resident, Ms Q and of actions undertaken to respond to the resident’s ASB and fly tipping reports.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in its handling of her ASB and fly tipping reports, her complaint and response to concerns about staff conduct.
2. Make a total payment to the resident of £1,250, comprised of:
  1. £700 for the adverse effect of the failings in its handling of her ASB reports. This includes the £200 previously awarded for distress and inconvenience and failure to attend a community trigger meeting.
  2. £200 for the adverse effect of the failings in its handling of the resident’s fly tipping reports.
  3. £350 for the adverse effect of the failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint and response to concerns about staff conduct. This includes the £50 previously awarded for the delayed complaint response.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Review what action it can take to clarify the ownership and use of car park spaces used by the resident and Ms Q.
2. Contact the resident to establish whether a referral to the landlord’s wellbeing team is appropriate.
3. Review record keeping errors identified in this report to ensure that processes and training is now in place to ensure these failings are not repeated.
4. Review ASB handling errors identified and remind ASB staff of the importance of completing risk assessments and agreeing action plans.
5. Remind complaint handling staff of the importance of agreeing extensions and ensure sufficient training and guidance is in place in respect of appropriately escalating complaints.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should contact the resident to confirm the status of her ASB case.