Places for People Group Limited (202219085)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219085

Places for People Group Limited

27 March 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Background

The resident was the assured tenant of the property, a ground floor, 1 bedroom, maisonette. The landlord is a housing association, but its properties are managed by a managing agent (the agent), which is also a registered provider of social housing. The resident has mental and physical health conditions which the landlord and the agent were aware of. The alleged perpetrator of the ASB is the resident’s neighbour (the neighbour), who lived in the maisonette directly above the property.
The resident emailed the agent on 3 September 2022, saying she had been assaulted by a friend of the neighbour outside the property and asked for it to call her. She said the police were called and the friend was arrested. The agent’s contact notes said the resident called again the following day to report ongoing issues with the neighbour, which included alleged drug dealing and lots of visitors. She said she had contacted the landlord directly but had not received a response.
The agent escalated the resident’s reports on 5 September 2022 and said a manager would contact her. The resident chased for an update later that day, but there is no evidence she was contacted. It is unclear exactly what action the agent took over the following weeks, but it said it allocated a case to its Community Safety Team on 21 September 2022.
The agent’s notes said it called the neighbour on 11 and 20 October 2022 to discuss the ASB reports and left voicemails asking her to call it back. No evidence has been provided to confirm if she did.
On 18 October 2022 the resident called her MP and left a voicemail asking for help, and to see whether he could speed things up, as she felt the landlord and agent were acting too slowly. She said she:
1. Had been assaulted by a friend of the neighbour.
2. Had reported incidents of ASB, including drugs and all-night parties to the landlord and its agent since August 2022, but had not received a response.
3. Required back surgery but had refused, as she felt she could not recover properly with the ongoing ASB, she was upset, in pain, and could not sleep or eat properly.
The MP wrote to the landlord on 21 October 2022 to ask if it would consider the resident’s concerns and advise how they might best be resolved. The landlord forwarded the email to its agent.
The agent opened an ASB case on 27 October 2022 after it received evidence of ongoing ASB including parties, late night visitors, overflowing refuse bins, reports of the smell of cannabis, and a belief drug dealing had taken place in and around the property from another resident (the other resident). However, the initial case summary noted the whole estate smelt of cannabis and this could not be attributed to a particular property. It said there was no evidence to support the belief drug dealing was taking place at the neighbour’s property.
The case file said the agent completed a risk assessment with the other resident, discussed an action plan, and sent diary sheets to be returned on 11 November 2022. It also called the resident the same day. During the call, she said the noise, nuisance, music, and cannabis smell made her feel extremely low in mood. In an internal email the agent said, as a result of the resident’s comments on the phone call, it made attempts to raise a welfare concern with the police, but the police signposted it to the ambulance service, who attended the property that night. It also spoke to the local mental health team, which agreed to call her that night. Further, the agent said it had provided details for the mental health team to the resident by text message.
The agent emailed the neighbour on 3 November 2022 to inform her it would visit the following day to discuss the ASB reports it had received. It also contacted the police to work with it on the ASB issues.
The agent visited the neighbour on 4 November 2022 when it issued her with a verbal warning as “the number of complaints from multiple sources could not be ignored.” It noted she was vulnerable and she admitted one of her visitors had smoked cannabis at the property, but denied she ever had in the property. The agent made enquiries to see if any support could be offered to the neighbour.
The night of the visit, the agent received reports of a party and video evidence of loud music coming from the neighbour’s property, and the police attended.
The resident called the agent on 6 November 2022 regarding the ASB. She alleged her garden wall had been damaged and she had told police about the ASB. She described how she no longer felt safe. Due to the further reports, the agent issued a formal written warning to the neighbour on 9 November 2022. The letter included further incidents that had been reported on 5, 6, 7 and 8 November 2022 including alleged verbal abuse, cannabis smoking, and loud banging and crashing disturbing others. It said she had breached her tenancy agreement in at least 4 ways, and if breaches continued, further action would be taken.
On 18 November 2022, the agent emailed the neighbour and told her it had received further reports of ASB, and it would now look to make an application to the court for an ASB injunction.
The resident emailed the landlord to raise a stage 1 complaint on 28 November 2022 and said:
1. She had regularly reported ASB and sent evidence to its agent, but nothing had been done.
2. She had contacted her local MP, the Ombudsman, and the council.
3. She would like a phone call to discuss the ASB, as the neighbour breached her tenancy agreement on numerous occasions, regularly had drug parties, and the smell of drugs and noise were unbearable.
4. The police had attended on 6 occasions in 4 months, and said they told her the male that assaulted her on 3 September 2022 had only been released from prison that day, was high on drugs, and had to be sectioned.
5. She could not sleep or eat properly, and her mental health had declined to the point she was having suicidal thoughts after 4 months of ASB.
6. Other residents in the street had complained about the neighbour and could it evict her.
The resident emailed the landlord a further 5 times the following day and said:
1. The neighbour repeatedly left rubbish outside the property, which she believed other residents had also complained about.
2. Due to the ASB, noise, and drugs she was exhausted and in pain. As a result, she had fallen and “smashed” her face resulting in two black eyes.
3. The neighbour deliberately let her dog defecate on the front garden, and she had not obtained permission from the landlord to keep a dog.
4. Apart from the assault, the worst part was the drugs smell, and she could not open her windows or enjoy her garden because of it.
5. Another party had started that evening. She described the music as “blaring”, the visitors were “banging and crashing around”, a dog was barking, and the drugs smell was disgusting.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 1 December 2022 and described an incident that occurred on 26 November 2022. She said 4 “drug dealers” had driven down the street erratically and asked residents where the neighbour’s boyfriend lived as he owed them money. The resident said she felt scared as she lived in the property directly below, was disabled, physically and mentally exhausted, and was worried her property could be mistaken for the neighbour’s.
In an internal email on 2 December 2022, the agent said it spoke to the resident the previous day for over an hour after it received her emails from the landlord, and it had raised a complaint in relation to its handling of the ASB reports. It raised a safeguarding concern after she mentioned her fragile mental health and suicidal thoughts on the phone call the previous day, and signposted the resident to agencies that provide immediate and long-term support. The resident emailed the agent and thanked it for the call, but also said:
1. The neighbour let her dog defecate on communal grass and said the neighbour’s boyfriend had blocked her car in with his van.
2. The agent had visited the neighbour on 3 November 2022, but she had not been updated with the outcome of the visit.
3. She felt alone and had no support.
4. Her social workers had called her and she described how she had broken down in tears and told them everything, including being failed by the landlord for 3 months.
5. People had turned up for another party at the neighbour’s home later in the day and her car had been blocked in by the neighbour’s boyfriend’s van.
On 3 December 2022, the resident emailed the agent again and said she had provided evidence of the van being parked in a dangerous manner obstructing the path. The following day the resident emailed the agent and said she had been unable to use her car due to it being blocked in, music had started again, and the smell of drugs was horrendous. She emailed again over 4 hours later and said banging and crashing had been constant for hours.
The agent acknowledged the resident’s emails sent over the weekend on 5 December 2022, and said it would add the information to her complaint. The resident replied to ask for an update on the application for the injunction, as the landlord had said on 16 November 2022 it was working on it, but she had not heard anymore. No evidence of this communication regarding the injunction application has been provided to this Service. The agent acknowledged her email and said it would address it in the complaint response.
The resident emailed the agent a further 3 times on 6 December 2022 and said:
1. The neighbour had shouted and sworn at workmen that attended to carry out repairs to a roof tile. She also had been banging and crashing as usual, but there was one “almighty smash” and she was worried the ceiling would give way.
2. She was a “mental wreck”, had suffered heart palpitations, a panic attack, and had tried to call the mental health team. She said 4 months of living at the property below the neighbour had destroyed her mental and physical well-being.
On 7 December 2022 the resident emailed the agent to report the smell of drugs, alleged drug dealing, shouting, screaming, crashing, and banging, and 2 dogs fighting in the neighbour’s flat. She emailed again the following day and said she had cancelled a hospital appointment after hardly getting any sleep the previous night. She said the situation was totally unacceptable and was seriously affecting her health. She said she had updated the agent daily, and still not received an update about the visit that took place in November 2022. The agent emailed the resident on 8 December 2022 and signposted her to her GP and services that could support her with her mental wellbeing while it continued to address the ASB.
The resident reported an overpowering smell of drugs on 9 December 2022, verbal abuse, and harassment from the neighbour on 11 December 2022, and made further allegations on 14 December 2022 that the neighbour used the property for prostitution, to store drugs, and reported loud music.
The resident’s social workers emailed the agent on 14 December 2022 and highlighted the resident’s significant concern relating to the ASB and the nature of the repeated ASB reports. They expressed concern the situation was having a “seriously negative” effect on her mental and physical health, said they had agreed to provide additional support, and asked the agent to update her.
The resident chased the agent for an update on 15 December 2022 and said it had told her she would need to sign a witness statement in support of its application for an injunction, but she had not received anything. No evidence of communication between the agent and the resident about this has been provided.
The agent issued its stage 1 response on 16 December 2022, in which it:
1. Acknowledged a service failure in the customer service the resident had received in relation to her reports of ASB, which it apologised for, and the inconvenience caused.
2. Explained there were several steps before an eviction is granted, one of which was applying for an injunction. It was in the process of compiling a list of incident reports before completing its application to the county court and it would update her.
3. Acknowledged in a call the previous day the resident requested the complaint be escalated to stage 2 as she was unhappy with its service, and the fact the injunction had not yet been obtained.
The resident signed a witness statement in support of the agent’s injunction application on 20 December 2022 and the agent filed its application with the court the next day. The interim injunction was granted on 23 December 2022 and was served on the neighbour by the agent on 30 December 2022. It said the court would reconsider the application at a further hearing on 13 January 2023.
The agent emailed the resident on 5 and 13 January 2023 following the court hearing (no copies provided to this Service), but it is not clear what the outcome of the hearing was. The agent noted it had a further phone call with the resident on 16 January 2023, but no call notes have been provided to this Service to confirm what the resident was told.
The agent sent a Section 21 Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) to the neighbour on 18 January 2023 listing 53 reported incidents.
In the agent’s stage 2 response of 20 January 2023 it:
1. Acknowledged it did not open a case concerning her reports of ASB until 21 September 2022, which was outside of its one day deadline for serious allegations of ASB.
2. Offered £50 gift vouchers for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to do so.
3. Confirmed the ongoing action against the neighbour, which included the injunction proceedings and serving of a NOSP.
4. Said if the resident remained dissatisfied, she could escalate her complaint to this Service.
The resident sent an email to the landlord the same day to request a phone call, as she had evidence of further ASB (a drug party) that had taken place on 6 January 2023. The landlord forwarded the email to the agent the same day.

Events after the end of the complaints process

The resident continued to report incidents via the agent’s ASB app, which it used for evidence gathering, of broadly a similar nature to what it was already aware of.
The agent continued with legal proceedings against the neighbour. It wrote to her on 26 January 2023 and asked her to file any evidence she wished to be considered by the court in relation to the injunction by 10 February 2023. It is not clear what happened, but the agent was informed on 2 March 2023 the hearing had taken place on 24 February 2023, but no notice of hearing had been received by either party. The case for the injunction was reinstated on 5 April 2023.
The agent reviewed its stage 2 response in relation to the resident’s reports of ASB around the end of March 2023, but no copy of the stage 2 response review has been provided to this Service. It wrote to her and offered £1,200 compensation for the level of service she had received, lack of communication, missed timescales, and any distress or inconvenience caused, plus a further payment of £300 to reimburse her for the cost of items she had purchased to secure her home.
The landlord ultimately decided the neighbour could appeal the NOSP in April 2023. Due to a change in the neighbour’s circumstances, the agent decided the original NOSP was no longer applicable, and so served a new NOSP under Grounds 12 and 14 of Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988 on the neighbour on 12 May 2023. It listed 77 incidents reported between 6 September 2022 and 6 May 2023 when it alleged the neighbour had breached her tenancy agreement. The same day, at court, a new interim injunction was granted with the final injunction hearing listed for 12 July 2023. However the case was ultimately adjourned for 8 weeks, before the landlord/agent decided it did not deem it appropriate to continue with the injunction application.
The agent reviewed its proportionality assessment on 24 October 2023 and decided it did not believe the ASB would continue. It said it had previously visited the neighbour, issued a verbal warning, offered mediation, issued a written warning, issued a pre-legal action letter, obtained an interim injunction, served a NOSP (but the appeal was not handled by the landlord as per policy so it had been unable to continue with this) and served a further NOSP. It noted the neighbour’s circumstances had significantly changed and ceased further action.
In a phone call with this Service, the resident said she moved out into private rented accommodation in February 2024, and had since been diagnosed with Tourettes.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether ASB took place or its seriousness. Instead, this Service considers the landlord/agent’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and whether it acted in line with its policies fairly and reasonably in all the circumstances of the case.
The resident has told the landlord/agent and this Service about the impact the ASB had on her physical and mental health. While the Ombudsman empathises with the resident, it is beyond the scope of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord/agent’s actions and the resident’s health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she believes her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord/agent. However, the Ombudsman has considered any distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord/agent.
The resident sent an email to the agent on 24 December 2023 in relation to delays repairing her smoke alarm and carbon monoxide reader. She said “this is to add to my complaints”, but there is no evidence this has been investigated as a complaint by the agent. As this is a separate complaint and there is no evidence it has exhausted the agent’s complaints procedure it is outside the scope of this investigation (reflected at paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme).
The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident continued to report ASB after the stage 2 response and her frustration understandably increased as the months passed, as her neighbour still lived above her. This Service can only investigate complaints which have completed the landlord’s complaints process and so this investigation has focused on the landlord/agent’s handling of ASB between 3 September 2022 and 20 January 2023, when it sent its stage 2 response. This is because the landlord has not had the opportunity to answer any complaints about its handling of the ASB post its stage 2 response.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord contracted the agent to act on its behalf and so the agent’s policies and actions are taken to be those of the landlord. The agent’s ASB policy says:
1. It expects residents to report incidents that involve possible criminal behaviour to the police including violence and threats of violence, harassment and drug related crime. It says it would expect the police to take necessary action and will support them in their investigation but would expect the police to take the lead role.
2. It will investigate issues that have a negative impact on the wider community such as noise, rowdy behaviour, misuse of drugs/alcohol or intimidation.
3. ASB can include violence or threats of violence, harassment, noise nuisance, verbal abuse, rubbish/fly-tipping. Incidents relating to domestic noise such as banging doors, footsteps from adjoining properties, noise from washing machines are not classed as ASB.
4. When a case is first reported, it will contact the resident that reported the incident within one working day, if the ASB reported involves the threat or use of violence. For all other cases, the resident reporting must complete an ASB form with incident details and supporting evidence. It will then assess the form within 5 working days and inform the resident of the outcome. In most cases residents will be asked to complete diary sheets over a 2-week period.
5. It will interview the alleged perpetrator and give a verbal warning which will be followed up in writing, and if they continue to cause ASB will ask for more evidence.
6. It will try and intervene early to act on reports of ASB to prevent it escalating. Interventions it can use include mediation, referral for support, visits, and warning letters.
7. It will safeguard vulnerable residents and ensure partners/agencies it works with are aware of the issues and will refer vulnerable residents to these agencies for support.
8. It will offer support to the perpetrator to try and change their behaviour by working with internal/external support providers or making referrals to other agencies. However, if ASB continues once supportive actions have been put in place, it may have to take enforcement action through the courts.
9. When enforcement action becomes necessary it will complete a proportionality assessment to consider the perpetrator’s circumstances and whether the action is proportionate.
10. Once it has done this, enforcement measures available are:
  1. Injunctions made at the court’s discretion requiring the perpetrator to stop their ASB or do a specific action.
  2. Applying to the county court for an Order for Possession of a property and evicting the perpetrator if the perpetrator or members of their family or friends are continuing to commit ASB.
  3. The council or police issuing a Community Protection Notice which if breached, is a criminal offence, and can result in a fine.
The resident said she had reported incidents to the landlord and its agent from August 2022. The Ombudsman accepts that additional incidents may have occurred but has not seen any evidence the landlord or agent received reports of ASB until the resident emailed the agent following the physical assault. In its stage 2 response, the agent offered £50 for not opening an ASB case within one day of the reported assault. However, the assault was not carried out by the neighbour, and this Service has not seen any evidence the landlord or its agent was provided with evidence there was any relationship between the individual and neighbour. Therefore its decision not to immediately open an ASB case was reasonable and it would have expected the resident to have reported the assault to the police.
Although the resident reported ASB on 4 September 2022, there is no evidence she was contacted to discuss the allegations or that the agent took any action at all until 21 September 2022. No information or details about the exact action it took has been provided to this Service, apart from notes of one attempted call to the neighbour. The lack of communication from the agent to explain the steps it was taking caused the resident considerable distress and led her to contact her MP due to the perceived lack of action, which was a failure.
In line with its policy, it was reasonable for the agent to wait until it had received sufficient evidence to warrant opening an ASB investigation into the neighbour, and once it received supporting evidence from the other neighbour, it was appropriate it did so. It is not clear how much evidence the resident provided to support her reports, and this Service has not been provided with evidence the other neighbour provided.
Once the file was opened, the agent’s initial actions in relation to the other neighbour (completing a risk assessment, agreeing an action plan, offering mediation, and sending diary sheets) were reasonable and in line with its policy. However, it is not clear whether it followed the same process for the resident, and it would have been right for it to have done so. There is evidence the resident declined an offer of either face to face or shuttle mediation, which shows the agent followed policy and tried to intervene early to prevent the ASB escalating.
The agent has a duty to all its residents. The evidence shows it engaged with the police, mental health services, social workers and signposted the resident and the neighbour to relevant organisations. This showed it followed its policy, was concerned about the welfare of both residents, and was good practice.
The agent handled the ASB case appropriately and in line with its policy. It used its incremental approach offering mediation, using warning letters and home visits before escalating and pursuing legal enforcement. It offered support to both parties, worked with partner agencies, and considered a wide range of interventions, which were appropriate and in line with the its ASB policy.
However the agent failed to keep in contact with, and provide updates to, the resident. The landlord or agent did not contact her between 5 September and 28 October 2022 and it failed to update her following its visit to the neighbour at the start of November 2022. The resident had been made aware of the injunction application on 16 November 2022, but had not received any further update until she chased the agent on 6 December 2022. The communication failures caused stress to the resident as she did not think the agent was acting with sufficient urgency. This was a failing which led her to contact this Service and her social care provider, as well as raising a complaint directly with the landlord.
Further inconvenience was caused to the resident on the expiry of the NOSP, as she had to chase for further updates. There is no evidence the agent clearly explained that serving the NOSP would not necessarily mean the neighbour would have moved out by the time it expired.
The agent did not initially offer anything to recognise its poor communication, however, following the stage 2 review significantly increased its compensation offer to £1,200 to recognise the inconvenience it had caused. The agent’s compensation policy says it will consider compensation when the overall resident experience has fallen short of its expected standards but does not give amounts it will pay.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
Whilst the compensation offer in the stage 2 review is not clearly broken down to clarify exactly how much the landlord awarded for the poor communication and inconvenience caused, the sum was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance. It adequately addressed the level of service failure identified in this report and acknowledged the level of impact these failings had on the resident. Had this offer been made in the stage 2 response of January 2023, this Service would have found that the landlord had made reasonable redress to the resident.
However, the landlord (and the agent acting on its behalf) did not reach this outcome through the operation of its standard complaints procedure and did not, therefore, resolve the matter at the earliest opportunity. This meant that the matter became unnecessarily protracted, causing further distress and inconvenience to the resident. As the suitable offer was not made until 2 months after the end of the complaints process, a finding of service failure is made and an additional sum of £100 is awarded to recognise this period of delay.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord/agent has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that its processes are not operating effectively. Its staff should be aware of a record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
Throughout this investigation the Ombudsman’s work has been hampered by either a lack of evidence or the provision of poor-quality records by the landlord/agent. The landlord/agent did not provide any evidence of the action taken by its Community Safety Team on 21 September 2021 or call notes or emails relating to the injunction application on 16 November 2022, the updates provided to the resident relating to the court hearing in January 2023, and notably, a copy of the stage 2 complaint review.
The landlord/agent’s inability to provide these documents demonstrates that its processes are not operating correctly. The lack of records has also delayed the Ombudsman’s investigation causing further inconvenience to the resident. There was maladministration in the landlord/agent’s record keeping as it either did not have, or did not provide, multiple records which would have helped this investigation. An order has been made that it pay £100 compensation to reflect the impact on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £1,700 made up of:
  1. £1,500 it offered within its stage 2 review if it has not already done so.
  2. £100 for the delay in making a suitable compensation offer for its handling of the ASB case.
  3. £100 to reflect the impact on the resident caused by its knowledge and information management failings.
3. Carry out a self-assessment against the recommendations within the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.
4. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendation

Investigate the complaint relating to delays repairing the resident’s smoke and carbon monoxide alarm, if it has not already done so.