Places for People Group Limited (202010595)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010595

Places for People Homes Limited

26 May 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. The resident’s request to be re-housed.
The resident has also complained that her neighbour was re-housed despite being a perpetrator of ASB.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling and;
2. Record keeping.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 34(a) of the Scheme, the following complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The resident’s concerns that her neighbour was re-housed despite being the perpetrator of ASB.
Paragraph 34(a) of the Scheme says:
1. “The person complaining (or on whose behalf a complaint is made) must have been, in the Ombudsman opinion, adversely affected by those actions or omissions in relation to their right (or application) to occupy their home”.
Evidence provided to this Service shows the resident’s neighbour (‘Ms A’) was moved to a larger property at the point the resident’s complaint was being considered at stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident was dissatisfied that Ms A had been moved and felt that she was being rewarded for “bad behaviour”. The resident asked the landlord to explain why it had moved Ms A. The landlord provided an explanation in its stage two complaint response, which included that Ms A was moved because of overcrowding.
While the resident’s concerns that the landlord moved Ms A are noted, the Ombudsman does not consider that the landlord’s action to move Ms A adversely affected the resident’s right to occupy her home. It is understood that there was an ongoing ASB case involving the resident and Ms A. However, the handling of Ms A’s application to move was a matter between Ms A and the landlord. Investigation into the complaint raised by the resident would require consideration of Ms A’s housing requirements and personal circumstances, and whether the landlord’s decisions for priority were appropriate. This is beyond the consideration of any ASB issue which affected the resident’s occupation of her home.
This complaint therefore falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under paragraph 34(a).
The remaining complaints about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and request to be re-housed are within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and are considered below.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy which began on 28 September 1987. The property is a two-bedroom maisonette in a block. The landlord has informed this Service that it is not aware that the resident had any vulnerabilities.
For the purpose of this report the resident’s neighbour will be referred to as Ms A. Ms A was also a tenant of the landlord at the time of the matters complained of.
The resident had reported noise, drug dealing and racial insults and intimidation in respect of Ms A in the past. The landlord had issued court proceedings on three occasions and undertakings were given by Ms A to stop the nuisance. The landlord was of the opinion that Ms A’s behaviour improved after the last undertaking, but it was unclear when this was made.

The landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy sets out the landlord’s approach to investigating and managing ASB. It states that the landlord:
1. Expects residents to report incidents that involve possible criminal behaviour to police to investigate. This would include harassment because of race. It would expect police to take the necessary and appropriate action. It would support the investigation but expect the police to take the lead role. Where the police closes its investigation without any action against an individual it would not normally take any additional action itself or investigate the matter further.
2. In respect of issues with noise it would expect residents to report the issue to their local authority’s environmental health service and follow their procedures prior to reporting to itself.
3. It will consider further investigation where:
  1. The perpetrator has damaged the landlord’s property or assets.
  2. The victim or perpetrator has identified safeguarding issues.
  3. It will investigate issues that have a negative impact on the community. These issues may include, noise, rowdy behaviour, misuse of alcohol/drugs or intimidation by gangs or individuals.
4. Incidents that relate to domestic noise are not classed as ASB and include:
  1. Banging doors.
  2. Footsteps and/or loud talking from adjoining properties.
  3. Noise of children running or playing.
The policy states it will act upon a report of antisocial behaviour in order to prevent it escalating to a more serious level. Interventions it will use to try and resolve the antisocial behaviour as quickly as possible include visits, warning letters, restorative meetings and asking the perpetrator to agree to sign an Acceptable Behaviour Contract which sets out the behaviour which will not be tolerated and the consequences of continuing antisocial behaviour. It will encourage a parent to enter a Parenting Contract where their child is involved in antisocial behaviour and agree what is expected from them and the support it and other agencies can offer.
Where a resident reports ASB its policy states it will assess the issue within five working days, and it will inform the resident of the outcome. If it is determined that action is required a manager will contact the resident to progress the case. It may ask the resident to keep a diary record of incidents to assist it in making that decision. If diary sheets are not returned or completed appropriately or the complainant fails to co-operate with any other part of the investigation it will consider closing the case.
It will carry out a risk assessment of a resident if the antisocial behaviour they are reporting involves the use or threaten of use of violence, domestic abuse or hate crime. This will be done as part of the initial investigation of the case.

The landlord’s lettings and marketing policy

The landlord’s lettings and marketing policy states management moves should only be considered in exceptional circumstances to address emergencies. It would consider this where a resident has been subject to sustained and persistent harassment, a victim of violence or threat of violence.

The landlord’s complaints policy

The landlord’s complaint policy states it will acknowledge stage one complaints within five working days and respond within 10 working days. It will acknowledge stage two complaints within three working days and respond within 20 working days.
The policy states that at stage one it has an “on the spot put it right within 24 hours.” It states if unable to resolve it should be considered as a stage one complaint.

The landlord’s compensation policy

The landlord’s compensation policy states it will consider compensation in the following circumstances:
1. Where it has failed to provide a service covered by the tenancy agreement.
2. Where there is unreasonable delay in it resolving a query or issue and the resident has not been kept informed.
3. Its methods to resolve a complaint (such as an apology and/or resolution or explanation) are considered insufficient by the person investigating the complaint or its previous response has been in adequate.
The overall experience of the resident requires some recognition to acknowledge that it has fallen short of its expected standards.

Summary of events

On 27 May 2020, the resident called the landlord to report rubbish on three neighbours’ balconies which included Ms A’s. She stated that the rubbish was a health hazard “due to it causing a foul smell and attracting bugs.”
On 16 June 2020, the landlord wrote to three of the resident’s neighbours including Ms A. It stated the correspondence was its third contact following letters it had sent on 29 May 2020 and 1 June 2020. It outlined the hazards caused because of items and rubbish still left on balconies. It asked the residents to move the items immediately. It said if the items were not moved it would refer the matter to its enforcement team.
On 29 July 2020, the landlord sent a warning letter to Ms A to advise that it had received reports of ASB. Within the letter the landlord asked if she could keep noise to a minimum. It is unclear from the evidence provided what prompted this action and what the reports of ASB were.
On 8 October 2020, the resident called the landlord to report that the CCTV outside her property had been vandalised. The resident explained that the camera had been moved and coloured over. The resident asked the landlord to review the footage to see who was responsible. Further internal email correspondence indicated that the landlord spoke to the resident about this. The landlord’s contractor was booked to complete the repair on 23 October 2020; and the landlord informed the resident of this by email.
The correspondence provided to this Service indicates that an incident took place involving Ms A on 22 November 2020, and the resident raised this with the landlord. However, it is unknown what the incident was and what action the landlord took. The evidence also suggests that the police were involved, and footage may have been obtained by the CCTV cameras.
On 15 December 2020, the resident emailed the landlord. She said:
1. She was disappointed that the landlord was not taking action against Ms A for “the bad behaviour.”
2. Ms A’s son and his friends were still trying to intimidate her and used a racial slur towards her as they walked past her window. As such, she was seriously concerned about her safety.
3. Following an incident on 22 November 2020 she was aware that the landlord visited Ms A. She asked if the landlord could confirm whether it had:
  1. received the request from the police for the CCTV footage of the incident.
  2. viewed the footage she had discussed.
  3. barred “the racist culprit” from visiting next door.
  4. Informed Ms A that court action would be taken if the behaviour did not improve.
  5. Involved social services as it had previously said it would.
4. She had already made the landlord aware that the situation was having a “serious impact” on her mental as well as physical wellbeing.
On 16 December 2020, the landlord responded. It said:
1. It was sorry that the resident felt disappointed. It had advised her already that it was not able to take any formal legal action at this stage, but this could change if Ms A did not abide by the terms of her tenancy agreement in the future.
2. In response to the resident’s questions relating to the incident of 22 November 2020:
  1. No formal request had been made by the police to view the CCTV.
  2. It had not viewed the CCTV.
  3. It had reminded Ms A of the terms of her tenancy and responsibilities regarding visitors and the further actions that would be taken if the behaviour continued.
  4. It had been in contact with social services and would continue to do so.
3. It understood the impact of this behaviour on the resident’s health and wellbeing. If she felt that she would require any additional support to let it know so that it could put her in contact with someone who could support, her.
On 18 December 2020, the resident responded and requested that the landlord keep the CCTV footage of the incident on 22 November 2020 and of a further incident which had taken place on 11 December 2020.
On 3 January 2021, the resident contacted this Service as she was unhappy with how the landlord had been responding to her reports of ASB. We contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf and asked for a complaint to be raised accordingly.
We advised that the resident wished for the landlord to:
1. investigate the anti-social behaviour.
2. evict the neighbour.
3. move her to a different property.
On 19 January 2021, the landlord sent its formal stage one complaint response. In summary it said:
1. There was insufficient evidence to take the matter to court.
2. It hoped that the resident could appreciate that it had taken measures in the past against Ms A. It had done so at the point when sufficient evidence was gathered, and it had a good chance of success at court.
3. It had continued to encourage the resident to provide diary sheets and further evidence.
4. It had kept the resident up to date throughout the process.
5. It understood that different people may be distressed or alarmed by different types of behaviour and activity. It would consider how severely the activity or behaviour was affecting others, how regularly it was happening and whether the behaviour was considered unreasonable.
6. Some activities relating to domestic noise were not classed as ASB even though they caused irritation and upset.
7. It had continued to address the matter with Ms A, but it would not be reasonable to evict someone for domestic noise.
8. In respect of the smell of cannabis reported it had been liaising on a regular basis with the police. The police needed to observe the smell to take action. It had alerted the police and had requested frequent visits so that the events could be witnessed and dealt with accordingly.
9. It could not disclose information about Ms A’s re-housing due to data protection.
10. The resident’s circumstances did not meet the criteria for a management move but she could register for housing through the local authority or its own register, mutual exchange or privately rent.
11. It did not uphold the complaint.
12. It agreed that nothing should be left in the communal area. Where the owner of any such items was identified it would charge costs associated with the removal of such items.
13. It had arranged for the cleaner to photograph the block on a weekly basis for the next four weeks to ensure that it monitored the communal area and contacted residents to remove items where necessary.
On 21 January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord. She said:
1. She had called the previous day but had been cut off.
2. She wished to provide further details about Ms A and recent ASB, and asked if the landlord could contact her.
3. The police had visited Ms A and she heard some discussion about her being moved to another property.
4. She wished to be updated about the CCTV relating to the incident that took place in November 2020. She also asked if the landlord could obtain the footage from the police visit that day.
The landlord responded the next day and advised that it would call her on 25 January 2021 at 11am.
On 27 January 2021, the landlord emailed the resident. It stated that further to their conversation earlier that week it was attaching diary logs for her to complete for the next two weeks. It asked her to complete and return the diary logs with incidents that occurred and that it would contact her again on 12 February 2021.
The landlord also acknowledged that the resident had expressed a desire to move. It provided links stating that as she was a tenant she could apply for a property on its own website. It advised that she could apply for a mutual exchange and provided a web link.
On 1 February 2021, the resident asked the landlord if it could send a list of areas she could move to, as she wished to be close to her work. She added that she had reported drug related activity at Ms A’s property; however, she did not believe that the police had taken the matter seriously. She considered that drug dealing was taking place, and she had noted the dates and times of people attending the property. The resident added that she had more timings which she would send later.
On 25 February 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and asked for an update on the action that it was taking. The landlord responded on the same day. It stated it was waiting for the resident to return the diary sheets that were sent on 27 January 2021.
On 8 April 2021, the landlord sent a formal caution for breach of tenancy to Ms A. The alleged breach was that the smell of cannabis had caused a nuisance to neighbours. It added that on 27 November 2020 and 31 March 2021 when it attended her property there was a heavy smell of cannabis.
On 25 May 2021, the resident reported loud music and door slamming by Ms A. She asked to be moved immediately. The next day the landlord responded asking if she could complete the diary sheets it had left with her the previous week. It advised that it had already given written warnings to Ms A so would need to review the evidence. It is unclear what transpired after the landlord’s email was sent.
On 2 September 2021, the resident called the landlord to make a complaint about the ASB issues. She said she had sent in diary sheets and photographs, but the enforcement team had not contacted her. She advised she was given an email address to make a formal complaint, but she was not well enough to email. She requested a call back.
The landlord raised a complaint on 3 September 2021 and asked an officer to contact the resident to see whether her concerns could be resolved. It was noted that it should try to deal with the matter at the “put right stage.” However, if it was unsuccessful, it would log it as a stage one complaint.
On the same day, the landlord emailed the resident. It apologised that she had not been contacted regarding her reports recently sent in about Ms A. It said:
1. It understood that the resident had raised a complaint and it was hoping that the email could explain the current position.
2. As previously mentioned, it was considering how to prevent further nuisance and would be able to update her in a few weeks.
3. It would contact her again on 13 September 2021.
On 20 September 2021, the landlord emailed the resident again. It said:
1. It was working on a solution to the matter; however, it could not give an answer at that time. This was because the date for proposed actions had changed due to circumstances beyond its control.
2. It would have a full answer at the end of September 2021. It assured her that it was working to find a resolution to bring the matter to a successful conclusion.
On 5 October 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to report the following:
1. Rubbish left open on Ms A’s balcony.
2. Banging and slamming of the doors.
3. On 18 September Ms A’s boyfriend screamed continuously for hours standing in the doorway. The resident had to leave for a few hours and when she returned, he was still shouting.
4. The whole neighbourhood could hear him when he was arguing with someone on the phone or arguing with Ms A.
5. She had further photographs from 18 September 2021 which showed rubbish being left on the balcony day and night.
The landlord responded on the same day. It stated it did not have an update, but a resolution was being progressed and it would contact her once it had further information.
On 8 October 2021, the resident contacted this Service as she was unhappy with what she considered a lack of action by the landlord. We contacted the landlord and advised that the resident said she:
1. Had received a stage one response but since then had been promised a move to another property to escape the ASB.
2. Had tried to escalate the complaint to stage two but had been unable to do this.
3. Would like assistance to find another property urgently.
4. Would like compensation due to the landlord being unable to stop the neighbour’s ASB.
This Service also asked the landlord to contact the resident for further details of the complaint and resolution. We said that if the resident had not exhausted the complaint process it should directly discuss the issues. It should then provide a written response within the timescales of its complaints policy or timescales set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
On 11 October 2021, the landlord sent an acknowledgement confirming the matter had been escalated to a stage two of its complaint’s procedure.
Ms A was then moved from her property. The exact date she moved is unknown.
On 9 November 2021, the landlord visited the resident to discuss the complaint. During its visit, the resident asked what it had done over the years to deal with the nuisance and whether it could have done more.
On 12 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that Ms A’s son and a friend had entered a property within the block that was void, the property that Ms A had lived in. She advised that they had remained there until 2am. The resident said that she was concerned that they had been able to access the property and was concerned as to why the locks had not been changed. The resident was also concerned that Ms A’s son and his friend had caused damage within the communal area, and asked if the landlord could check the CCTV footage.
On 18 November 2021, the landlord issued its stage two response to the complaint. It said:
1. It had kept the resident informed of any actions it had taken in the past with her neighbour. Over the years it had utilised several remedies including mediation and ASB contracts. It had applied to the courts on three separate occasions for an injunction when the nuisance was intolerable. However, each time an undertaking was signed, Ms A’s behaviour improved.
2. The issues of drug dealing were not proven, and other residents did not report this to the police so these could not be verified or substantiated.
3. Excessive noise was reported again in 2020. The noise was mainly due to four children being at home in a two-bedroom flat rather than at school and most residents being at home instead of work.
4. Nuisance was also caused by some of the visitors to the home and rubbish bags being left in the communal corridor instead of being taken straight to the bins.
5. It had worked with Ms A to address the issues and the resident had been offered support regarding her wellbeing. There was not enough evidence to take legal action against Ms A at the time.
6. It did not accept that it should pay compensation for failing to deal appropriately with the nuisance caused. It considered it was no longer necessary to move the resident.
The resident contacted this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and wanted compensation for the stress caused.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB

Although it is noted that there is a long history of ASB reports by the resident, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from May 2020 onwards. This is because the evidence shows that the resident first expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB in December 2020.
It is not disputed that the type of behaviour reported by the resident will have been a source of distress for her. Nevertheless, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to prove whether events took place as alleged but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably, and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The evidence provided to this Service shows that in May and June 2020, in response to the resident’s reports about rubbish, the landlord issued warning letters to the residents concerned. This was appropriate and in accordance with its ASB policy.
Evidence then shows that the landlord sent a warning letter to Ms A in July 2020 regarding noise complaints. No records have been provided to this Service to show what reports this warning letter was in response to. While the landlord’s policy states that excessive noise should be reported to environmental health in the first instance, it does still have a duty to investigate and respond to ASB and noise nuisance. Particularly as it is likely to be a term of its tenancy agreement that tenants should not engage in antisocial behaviour.
The landlord contacted the resident in September 2020 with details of how she could apply for alternative housing. The correspondence refers to a conversation with the resident, but no records have been provided to this Service, so it is unknown whether this was in response to further reports of ASB or simply an enquiry about moving.
In October 2020, the resident reported that the CCTV had been vandalised and a repair was raised by the landlord. No evidence has been provided to this Service to show whether the repair was completed, and the CCTV reinstated. However, references are made to the CCTV footage in November 2020 and December 2020 which would suggest that it was operational again then.
On 24 November 2020 records show that the landlord was in contact with the police discussing CCTV footage that the police may require. The landlord invited the police to visit Ms A with it on 27 November 2020. Again, due to the lack of records this Service is unable to ascertain what happened and why the CCTV footage was required. It is noted however that in December 2020 the resident referred to an incident which took place on 22 November 2020, and asked whether the landlord had viewed this footage.
The resident asked several times in her correspondence whether the landlord or the police had viewed the CCTV footage of the incident in November and December 2020. The landlord stated it had not and the police had not requested it. The landlord’s ASB policy states that where criminal matters are concerned, it expects the police to take the lead role. However, the evidence provided to this Service does not show that this was explained to the resident. In addition, the evidence does not show that the landlord was liaising with the police to ascertain whether it had investigated the allegations or whether it would be taking any action. This was inappropriate.
The resident reported that a visitor to Ms A’s property used a racial slur, and she was concerned about her safety as a result. The landlord’s ASB policy states that where a hate crime is reported it will complete a risk assessment. However, the evidence provided to this Service does not demonstrate that a risk assessment was undertaken. The resident had also mentioned the impact that the behaviour was having on her mental and physical health. While the landlord advised support was available if the resident felt she needed it, it is unclear why a risk assessment was not completed at this stage. The risk assessment would have enabled the landlord to assess the impact on the resident and then consider what action was appropriate. That the landlord did not carry out a risk assessment was a failing in its handling of the ASB.
The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor and unhelpful. There was no clarity about what the landlord could and could not do in respect of its policy and working with the police. This would have caused uncertainty for the resident who had already stated she felt unsafe.
The resident was given diary sheets to log incidents in January 2021. It is unclear why diary sheets were not issued much earlier in the case. This may have enabled the landlord to effectively monitor the ASB frequency and clearly advise the resident in accordance with its ASB policy.
From the resident’s correspondence to the landlord, it is noted that she had submitted completed diary sheets and photographs, and that she was waiting for a response from the landlord. However, this Service has not been provided with a copy of the diary sheets, or any evidence showing how these were considered by the landlord. As such, it is not evident that the diary sheets were considered by the landlord during its investigations. This is inappropriate as diaries of reported behaviour and incidents can form crucial evidence in ASB cases.
The landlord did, however, serve a formal tenancy caution after receiving reports of suspected drug dealing on the basis it had visited itself and smelt drugs. This was appropriate action and in accordance with its ASB policy.
In response to the noise and rubbish reports, the landlord stated it was working on a resolution and would update the resident as soon as it had further information. This response was unhelpful to the resident as she was not sufficiently reassured that the reports were being addressed.
It is noted that the landlord was arranging for Ms A and her family to be moved; and that it was unable to disclose this to the resident at the time. However, the evidence shows that the resident continued to report her concerns about the ASB, and her belief that the landlord was failing to take action. The lack of response/reassurance by the landlord left the resident feeling that her concerns were not being taken seriously. As a result, she asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure. This was the cause of further time and inconvenience to the resident.
During the course of this Service’s investigation, we asked the landlord to provide further evidence. This was on the basis that the evidence which had already been provided did not clearly demonstrate the actions that it had taken in response to the resident’s report. The evidence provided was again insufficient, and a further, third, request was made. The landlord provided a timeline of the events in response. While this has been considered, the information it contains is inadequate and does not correlate with the evidence previously provided to this Service. The landlord has failed to provide a clear audit trail demonstrating the reports that were made by the resident and the actions that were taken by the landlord in response.
The landlord’s ASB policy states it will record and monitor incidents of ASB on its housing management recording system, but this evidence has not been provided to this Service. Clear record keeping and management is essential where reports of ASB are made, and investigations into allegations are undertaken. This is because such records form evidence which the landlord may review and rely on in its management of the ASB case.
Accurate and complete records also help a landlord review its handling of the ASB case through its complaint procedure, and to provide evidence during other processes including Ombudsman investigations and legal proceedings. The absence of appropriate records, and therefore evidence, presents a significant risk that such processes cannot be fully utilised, and residents are disadvantaged.
During the course of the complaints process the resident said that she wished to be compensated as she felt that the landlord had not been able to stop the ASB. When the landlord issued its stage two response it said that it did not accept that it should pay compensation.
This Service is unable to establish how the landlord satisfied itself that it had provided an adequate service and that there were no unreasonable delays due to its poor record keeping. It is therefore unclear how the landlord concluded that there had not been any failing in its handling of the ASB, and that no compensation was warranted.
In this case, there are significant gaps in evidence which has not enabled this Service to obtain a full understanding of the history and handling of this ASB case. This would cause further stress, time and inconvenience to the resident.
In summary there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB as the landlord has not been able to evidence that its decisions were based on appropriate evidence, or that proportionate actions were taken in response to all reports (such as consideration of CCTV footage).There is also no evidence that risk assessments were completed at appropriate times, which was a missed opportunity for the landlord to identify whether additional action was required in this case.

The resident’s request to be re-housed.

The resident’s reasons for wishing to be re-housed are acknowledged however there are certain criteria that would need to be met for a landlord to facilitate such a move.
Management moves are discretionary, and the landlord’s policy states it will consider a management move to address emergencies where a resident has been subjected to persistent harassment, violence, or threat of violence. A landlord should ensure that it is exercising its discretion fairly. This would include demonstrating that it considered the nature of the ASB, the length of time it had been ongoing and the impact on the resident amongst other things.
The landlord advised the resident that she did not fulfil the criteria for a management move. However, it is unclear how the landlord reached its decision. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out a risk assessment in this case, which would have informed the landlord’s decision. Additionally, this Service has not seen any records that show that the landlord explained to the resident why she did not qualify for a management move, or any internal records detailing its decision making.
The landlord could have addressed this point in its complaint responses rather than simply stating the resident did not qualify. A clear explanation would have provided more clarity to the resident to understand the basis on which a management move would be appropriate. That it did not provide such an explanation was a failure in its handling of the matter. Further, that the landlord did not offer any explanation for its decision that the resident did not qualify for a management move while Ms A was moved from her property (albeit for different reasons) understandably caused the resident additional distress and concern that her reports had not been acted on while Ms A had been “rewarded”.
While the landlord informed the resident that it could not re-house her it did provide her with information about her alternative options to move and this was reasonable in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman Complaints Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords should provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.
It is unclear how the landlord satisfied itself in its stage one complaint response that the case had been dealt with “robustly and fairly.” It relied on the basis that it had taken legal action previously but the evidence at that point was insufficient for it to take legal action. However, at that point the resident had expressed concerns that her recent reports had not been acted on.
Evidence provided to this Service showed that the landlord had sent warning letters and had visited Ms A. The landlord did not however explain any action it had taken in its stage two response it stated it had “worked with Ms A to address the issues”.
The reason for the vague responses is not known, but it is acknowledged that this may have been because the landlord did not consider it appropriate to share certain personal information about Ms A with the resident. The landlord did mention GDPR in relation to another element of the complaint. However, this was not given as a reason by the landlord for not detailing the action taken, and the responses therefore appeared vague for no good reason. This did not give the impression that all reports had been taken seriously and all appropriate action had been taken.
The landlord’s complaint responses did not address the racial slur that the resident had reported in December 2020. Given the serious nature of this report it would have been reasonable for the landlord to address this and explain what action it took. Particularly as the resident had informed the landlord she felt unsafe, and it was impacting her mental and physical health.
The landlord failed to respond in accordance with its complaint policy to the resident’s complaint raised on 3 September 2021. This was a failing in its complaint handling. This would have caused the resident further distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble in having to pursue the matter further by contacting this Service for assistance. The landlord’s stage two response was then sent seven days outside of its own timescale.
It is not clear what records the landlord referred to during its investigation as the information does not appear in the records that have been provided to this Service. The absence of relevant, contemporaneous records in this case indicates that the landlord’s record keeping (retention and retrieval of accurate records) affected its ability toaccurately respond to the complaint.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was poor, and there was maladministration by the landlord. To reflect this maladministration, an order of compensation has been made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be re-housed.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that the neighbour was re-housed despite continued ASB.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
5. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 34 (a) the resident’s complaint that her neighbour was re-housed despite being a perpetrator of ASB is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

The landlord failed to keep appropriate records relating to the resident’s reports of ASB which then meant that it was unable to demonstrate through the documents provided that it dealt with the resident’s reports of ASB appropriately and in line with its policy.
It was unclear how the landlord reached its decision that the resident did not qualify for a move. There was no evidence that the landlord carried out a risk assessment, which would have informed the landlord’s decision. It then failed to provide the resident with a clear explanation of why she did not qualify for a move.
The landlord failed to follow its complaints procedure and address all key elements of the complaint.
There are concerns regarding the landlord’s record keeping. Its records regarding the ASB reports and what action it took are unclear. Accurate and contemporaneous records are an essential aspect of a landlord’s service. In this case, the landlord’s record keeping failures have resulted in the finding of maladministration and have compounded the overall detriment experienced by the resident.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings that have been identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident a total of £850 which is comprised as follows:
  1. £400 for the adverse effect caused by its failings in the handling of the reports of ASB including the impact of poor record keeping.
  2. £100 for the adverse effect caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be re-housed.
  3. £350 for the adverse effect caused by its failure to follow its complaints procedure and address all key elements of the complaint, including the impact of poor record keeping.
Within six weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Consider the failings identified in this case and review its current processes for recording ASB to ensure that appointments, progress, and communication with residents are captured accurately in its records. The outcome of this review should be shared with the Ombudsman, also within six weeks. If the landlord has already carried out such a review or made changes since the events considered in this determination which will reduce the likelihood of similar failings happening again, it should notify this Service (also within six weeks). Detail of the changes made, and impact of the changes should be set out.

Recommendations

Within six weeks of the date of this determination carry out refresher training with its complaint handling staff to ensure that complaints are handled in line with the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code (available on the Housing Ombudsman Service website)