Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited (202110576)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110576

Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited

13 October 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB);
2. request to be rehoused;
3. associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord which began in 2001. He lives alone in the property, which is a one-bedroom first-floor flat in a block of flats.
Throughout his correspondence with the landlord and this Service, the resident has been represented by his friend (and, at other times, his sister). For the purposes of this investigation, all three are referred to as ‘the resident’.
The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident has informed the landlord and this Service that he has mental health issues and learning difficulties, and that he cannot read.
The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as “behaviour which causes, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress”, and nuisance as “behaviour which unreasonably and substantially interferes with peaceful enjoyment”. Activity that it will investigate as ASB includes abuse, bullying, harassment, intimidation and threats, whereas activity that it will investigate as nuisance includes rowdy behaviour, shouting and littering. It will provide an initial response to tenants who report ASB and nuisance within one and five working days respectively. It will then provide progress reports to those reporting ASB at least once a week, and to those reporting nuisance at least once a month.
The ASB policy states that where ASB also constitutes criminal behaviour, it should be reported to the police. The landlord will support the police to deal with crime. If a tenant commits a crime that is a breach of its tenancy agreement, it will normally commence legal proceedings to end the contractual relationship. Legal enforcement action will be taken in circumstances when the offender has been identified; the behaviour has continued despite a warning (or is serious enough that a warning is not practical); there is a risk of harm; and the evidence supports proceedings. Such enforcement action may take the form of injunctive and/or possession proceedings. The landlord will refer tenants asking to be rehoused due to ASB to the local authority for a statutory homelessness assessment.
The landlord’s customer care policy states that it will listen, explain what it can and cannot do, and do what it says it will. It aims to resolve complaints with “an appropriate remedy that puts the person raising the issue back to where they would have been if they hadn’t had to make a complaint”. On receiving a complaint, it will contact the complainant within two working days and will normally respond within ten working days. If the complainant does not agree with its remedy, it will ask why and what remedy they want. A two-person panel, comprised of the director of the relevant service and a senior officer from another directorate, will then carry out a review and decide whether the remedy was appropriate. It will normally respond to complaints at ‘review’ stage within 20 working days.
The customer care policy lists a number of things that the landlord will not consider as a complaint, including “anything that happened more than six months ago”. When calculating compensation as part of its complaint response, it will award up to £250, depending on its level of responsibility and the amount of inconvenience, annoyance and distress caused by its service failure.

Summary of events

In October 2018 the resident’s neighbour mistakenly accused the resident of burglary and became angry with him, saying “You best stay away from us.” The resident was frightened to leave his property and reported his neighbour’s behaviour to the landlord. The landlord said it would interview the resident’s neighbour, but did not immediately do so. In November 2018 the landlord asked the resident how things had been with his neighbour, and in December 2018 the landlord attended the resident’s property unannounced. This upset the resident, who felt the landlord’s visit had drawn attention to him and that this could lead to reprisals from his neighbour. He asked the landlord not to interview his neighbour as he felt too much time had passed since the incident in October 2018. Following these events, the resident believed he was left with two options: make himself homeless, which he said the landlord had suggested to him, or change his lifestyle and routine in order to avoid any contact with his neighbour.
On 7 March 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to report that his neighbour was continuing to behave in an antisocial way. The reported behaviour mainly consisted of swearing, shouting at other residents, and incidents that resulted in the police being called to the neighbour’s property. The landlord requested information from the police on 10 March 2021 but did not reply to the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 17 March 2021 to chase a response to his previous email. The landlord replied and asked for a phone number to call him on. On 18 March 2021 the resident told the landlord that he would prefer to communicate via email as he had lost faith due to its previous handling of his case in 2018. He also reported further incidents of swearing and racist comments being shouted from his neighbour’s property. The landlord replied on 22 March 2021 to confirm that it was looking into the reported issues. It asked the resident to provide details of any further incidents, including recordings if possible.
The landlord attempted to interview the resident’s neighbour on 29 March 2021, but they did not attend. On 31 March 2021 the resident told the landlord that his neighbour had been parking in other people’s parking spots and swearing at them. The landlord liaised with the police, who had an open investigation, the same month. It also referred the case to its hate crime panel.
On 8 April 2021 the landlord informed the resident that it intended to apply for an injunction against his neighbour and asked if he would be prepared to give a court statement. The resident asked the landlord some questions about the legal process on 9 and 16 April 2021. He asked what was involved in an injunction application and expressed his concern that any recordings he provided could identify him. He also asked about the outcome of the interview with his neighbour. The landlord replied on 16 April 2021, explaining that the neighbour did not attend for interview and so it had decided to pursue legal action. It said that people who had provided witness statements would be named on the injunction in order to protect them, but if the resident did not wish to be identified in the proceedings, its officer could provide an overarching statement and describe any recordings he had made. The resident told the landlord that he felt providing a statement in support of an injunction, rather than eviction, would not be helpful as it “will not change anything for someone next door”.
On 19 April 2021 the landlord suggested that the resident could provide an anonymous statement, and offered to refer him to its safeguarding team. The resident replied the following day, saying that he did not want to provide a statement until he knew what the landlord could do to help him. He asked to speak to an “experienced housing advisor”.
On 21 April 2021 the resident reported that his neighbour’s car had been set on fire and that his neighbour had sworn at the resident’s friend. He asked to speak to a housing advisor as a matter of urgency. The landlord told the resident it had completed a “ring around” of nearby properties to gather more information about the car fire, and asked if he would now consider providing a statement. He said he would not consider this until he had spoken to a housing advisor.
On 28 April 2021 the landlord’s housing advisor contacted the resident. The advisor sent the resident some housing information on 5 May 2021, which presented the resident with five options: remain in his property while the landlord pursued enforcement action against his neighbour; approach his local authority’s homeless department for an immediate move due to ASB; register with the local authority’s allocations scheme for a transfer; seek a mutual exchange; or use a different external transfer scheme. The landlord gave links to relevant websites.
On 7 May 2021 the resident complained to the landlord, referring to “an ASB matter that was reported back in 2018 and continues to this day”. He said the landlord had failed to take action three years earlier, leaving him in a position where he no longer wanted to live on his own. He said he had contacted the landlord reluctantly in March 2021 after his neighbour started behaving towards other residents as they had been behaving towards him, because the neighbour’s actions were making him “depressed and stressed”. He expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to his recent reports, pointing out that it had delayed in replying to his emails and had not listened to his audio recordings. He felt that evicting his neighbour would take too long and could lead to retaliation. He noted that his doctor felt an injunction would not help if he continued to live next door. On 13 May 2021 the resident sent the landlord a letter from his doctor in support of a house move, and on 14 May 2021 the landlord’s safeguarding team liaised with the resident.
The resident’s later correspondence refers to a complaint being made to the landlord on 17 May 2021. This Service has not had the opportunity to inspect any records relating to a complaint on that date. The Ombudsman has assumed that the reference was to the resident’s email on 7 May 2021.
On 24 May 2021 the landlord was granted an interim injunction to prevent the resident’s neighbour from causing ASB. The neighbour did not attend the court hearing. The landlord’s housing advisor informed the resident of the terms of the injunction during a virtual meeting on 25 May 2021; he was initially informed that the injunction excluded his neighbour from their property, but it was later clarified (on 10 June 2021) that there was no exclusion as there were already bail conditions in place that prevented the neighbour from being at their address.
On 26 May 2021 the resident informed the landlord that he thought his neighbour had returned to their property and was breaching the injunction. The landlord advised the resident on 7 June 2021 that the neighbour’s brother had been allowed to return to the property due to bail conditions lapsing. At a court hearing on 8 June 2021, the interim injunction that had been granted was extended.
The resident emailed the landlord the same day (8 June 2021), stating that:
1. He was writing in relation to a complaint he had made on 17 May 2021.
2. He had a number of questions in relation to the landlord’s response to his reports of ASB, both in 2018 and in 2021.
3. With regard to the landlord’s response to his reports in 2021, he wanted to know:
  1. What the landlord did about his neighbour’s non-attendance at court.
  2. Why the landlord had given conflicting advice about whether he was allowed to make audio recordings of incidents involving his neighbour.
  3. Whether the landlord was now prepared to listen to his recordings.
  4. Why the landlord had not responded to his emails and request for a meeting with its housing advisor, resulting in him having to chase.
  5. Why the meeting was not held until the injunction had been applied for.
  6. Why the resident had been blamed for delays, when they were caused by the landlord.
  7. Why the landlord had not replied to him about his request for a move, including when he provided a doctor’s letter.
  8. Why the landlord had changed its mind about evicting his neighbour, and how long the eviction process would take.
  9. What would happen to him when his neighbour returned to their property.
  10. Why the landlord wrote to all residents in the block about ASB caused by his neighbour.
  11. What the landlord’s policy was about vehicles parked in spaces where they should not be, and why nothing was done about his neighbour’s vehicle.
  12. How the landlord helped people who were vulnerable.
4. He was scared to live in his flat on his own and would not go past his neighbour’s door unaccompanied. While his neighbour was living in their property, he would sit in his bedroom with the blinds shut and would not answer the door, as the neighbour had previously banged on his door, looked through his windows and shouted at him.
5. He had only been given one day’s notice of the injunction hearing.
6. He had been told it was unlikely his neighbour would return to their property, but it now looked as if they would be back soon, meaning that he would be back in the same position as before.
7. He was finding it difficult to fill out the landlord’s form to apply for a move on medical grounds.
8. He felt the landlord did not understand mental health issues.
9. He believed the landlord should do “a lot more” to help him.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s email the same day and said it would respond within ten working days. On 9 June 2021 it called the resident and told him that, in addition to obtaining two injunctions, it would also be seeking possession of his neighbour’s property. It told the resident that it needed a signed letter of authority (LOA) in order to communicate with his representative. The resident has disputed this version of events and explained that the landlord did not contact him on this day. An internal email by the landlord on 10 June 2021 confirmed that there was an LOA in place on its systems.
On 23 June 2021 the resident emailed the landlord again, stating that:
1. He had received no reply to his complaints made on 17 May 2021 and 8 June 2021. It had now been over ten working days since 8 June 2021.
2. He would like an update on his complaint and “the situation as a whole”.
3. At 8.50am that morning, he had overheard his neighbour talking about their property being burgled. This caused him concern as his neighbour had accused him of burgling their property in 2018.
4. The neighbour said they were only allowed to be at the property for an hour to collect their car, but they were there for most of the day. He wanted to know why he was not told they would be attending the property and why the landlord had previously said they were not allowed to be in the area, when that was not the case.
5. He also wanted a copy of the injunction – which he had been promised but not yet received – so he could see how it protected him.
6. The landlord said it did not want him to feel the way he does, but his feeling of being scared and unsupported was caused by the landlord’s actions.
7. He felt the landlord was helping other residents who had the ability to avoid his neighbour, but the location of his property meant that he could not avoid the neighbour and he was not being helped or updated.
8. He felt he had been lied to and ignored by the landlord.
On 28 June 2021 the resident forwarded his email of 23 June 2021 to the landlord, saying he had contacted its complaints mailbox but received no reply. He said the landlord had not responded within ten working days, as it said it would, and that it had not provided a copy of the injunction as it promised.
The landlord replied to the resident on 2 July 2021, stating that:
1. It apologised for its delay in responding, and it was now in a position to provide a full response.
2. It was unable to answer the resident’s questions about how his case was dealt with three years ago. This was because its complaints policy stated that it could only deal with complaints about incidents that occurred in the last six months.
3. In reply to the resident’s questions about its more recent response:
  1. Although his neighbour did not attend court, the legal proceedings continued and this did not affect the case.
  2. It would have been happy to listen to any recordings submitted by the resident in order to gain a better understanding of the ASB issues.
  3. It was sorry the resident felt he had to chase emails to get a response.
  4. Its housing advisor had to manage a number of high priority cases and had accommodated a meeting with the resident as soon as possible. It was unfortunate that the meeting did not take place before the injunction hearing, and it accepted that it was responsible for the delay.
  5. It apologised for not contacting the resident about two incidents that occurred shortly before the injunction proceedings. It agreed that the resident should have been updated on the progress of the case.
  6. It had passed medical information provided by the resident to its housing advisors so that the relevant officer could contact the resident about his housing options. A misunderstanding resulted in the resident not being contacted.
  7. It maintained that an injunction was the best way it could have protected the resident and others at the time of the application. If the injunction was breached, the resident’s neighbour could face a custodial sentence.
  8. Due to the seriousness of the reported incidents, it also intended to begin eviction proceedings against the neighbour. It was unable to give a specific timeframe for this but noted that it was likely to be a lengthy process.
  9. It considered that sending a letter to all residents of the block about littering was the most appropriate way of dealing with this issue at the time.
  10. It would look into the car parking situation, including finding out what could be done to remove the burnt-out vehicle, and update the resident.
  11. It offered to refer the resident to its safeguarding team if he agreed to this.
  12. The resident should not have been informed that his neighbour was not allowed to be in the area, as this was not part of their bail conditions. The error was due to the landlord being misinformed by the police.
  13. It had not been aware that the neighbour would be returning to the property on 23 June 2021, as it had been waiting for the police to confirm the neighbour’s bail conditions at the time.
4. It was unfortunate that the resident felt his case had not been managed properly. It did not want him to continue to live in fear, and asked him to let it know how it could support him.
5. It attached a copy of the injunction and power of arrest as requested.
6. If the resident wanted to discuss the matter further, it offered to arrange a call.
On 7 July 2021 the resident replied to the landlord, stating:
1. The landlord was refusing to answer questions about its response more than six months ago, despite telling him during an earlier phone call that it could answer all the questions in his email.
2. If the landlord was following the procedures set out on its website, it should follow them in all circumstances, not when it suited it to do so. He felt the landlord had disregarded its policies and procedures throughout the ASB investigation.
3. The issues in 2018 related to the same problem, so the landlord should be able to answer his questions about its response. The resident had obtained legal advice which stated that the landlord should be able to answer all his questions.
4. He disputed that everything else the landlord’s housing advisor was dealing with was more important than his case. He felt that he had to make a complaint in order to get a response from the advisor.
5. He had never been asked for a letter of authority until he made a formal complaint.
6. He had struggled to complete the landlord’s housing form as it was more aimed at someone with a disability. He had received no guidance and asked for help with completing the form.
7. The landlord’s legal action against his neighbour “doesn’t make everything alright”.
The resident subsequently contacted this Service on 13 August 2021. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 22 September 2021 and asked it to consider the resident’s complaint under its internal complaints procedure. The resident contacted the Ombudsman four times between 24 September 2021 and 8 November 2021 to say that he had received no contact from the landlord.
Meanwhile, the landlord served a notice of seeking possession on the resident’s neighbour in August 2021, and the injunction was discharged in September 2021.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord again on 9 December 2021 and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 16 December 2021. The landlord issued a stage one response on 16 December 2021, stating that:
1. It had spoken to the resident’s representative on 14 December 2021 to confirm the current situation and the remedies sought by the resident.
2. It could see that the resident initially made contact with it on 7 March 2021, detailing the issues he was facing and the distress these were causing him. It advised that it was aware of the issues he was concerned about and that it was also receiving reports from other neighbours. It said it would interview his neighbour to inform them of the concerns raised and that their behaviour was not acceptable. Unfortunately, the neighbour did not attend for interview.
3. It had continued to receive reports from the resident and other tenants, and on 8 April 2021 it told the resident that it would be gathering evidence in support of legal action.
4. The resident informed the landlord that, due to his health conditions, he would not be able to support the evidence gathering process or appear in court. It understood this and continued without the resident’s evidence.
5. On 20 and 27 April 2021 the resident requested to speak to a housing advisor as he wanted to move away from the property. He was contacted by a housing advisor and was given advice about housing options on 5 May 2021.
6. Following this, a virtual meeting took place on 25 May 2021. It understood that the meeting did not set out all the information the resident had hoped for, and it apologised for this. It accepted that the purpose of the meeting should have been made clearer in advance.
7. A court hearing took place on 24 May 2021 and an injunction was granted to the landlord on 4 June 2021. The court did not grant the full terms sought by the landlord due to evidential limitations. It shared the resident’s frustration that the injunction did not offer the full protection it had hoped to provide.
8. When it updated the resident on 7 June 2021, he expressed his concern about one of the neighbour’s family members remaining at the property. It agreed this was not explained clearly enough and caused the resident additional distress. It accepted it should have been clearer and updated the resident accurately regarding the outcome of the court hearing.
9. Since 7 June 2021, it could see its communication had been poor and the resident was not kept updated. It agreed this was totally unacceptable and sincerely apologised.
10. It returned to court on 29 September 2021 and, due to further evidence being submitted, was granted an order excluding all of the neighbour’s family members from the property. It was liaising with the police and its legal representatives to monitor the situation.
11. It had been made aware by the resident’s representative that he did not have any current professional support in place and felt vulnerable in his home, with his main focus being to move. It had asked its safeguarding manager to contact the resident and discuss support that was available.
12. It would also ensure that, moving forward, it kept the resident up to date with any progress on the ASB case.
13. It hoped the response clarified its position and provided reassurance that it continued to take the matter very seriously.
14. If the resident disagreed with its decisions, he could ask for a review within ten working days. He must explain why he disagreed and the remedy sought.
The resident replied to the landlord on 5 January 2022, stating that:
1. He was unhappy with the lack of support given to him throughout the ASB investigation and his formal complaint.
2. He had first made his complaint in May 2021, and wanted to know why it had taken the landlord over seven months to take it seriously and respond. He noted that his complaint was not acknowledged at the time and asked whether it was on record.
3. He repeated his questions about the landlord’s response to his ASB reports in 2018, as he had received legal advice that the landlord should be able to answer these.
4. He had had to chase replies from members of the landlord’s staff by contacting other staff.
5. He was upset that the virtual meeting with the housing advisor was not carried out as a matter of urgency. Instead, it took place 18 days after it was offered.
6. He felt the landlord had given him false information during the meeting about what his neighbour was allowed to do under the terms of the injunction.
7. He questioned why the landlord had begun proceedings to evict his neighbour when it had previously cited the risk of retaliation as a reason not to do this.
8. The landlord had not fulfilled its aim of resolving complaints with a remedy that put the person raising the issue back to where they would have been if they hadn’t had to make a complaint, as he was still in a vulnerable situation three years after he first reported the issue.
9. He felt the landlord only took action to address his neighbour’s ASB once other tenants started complaining, and that the other complainants were kept updated whereas he was not. He had not been told what was happening with his neighbour’s eviction or what would happen if the landlord was unsuccessful in repossessing the property.
10. He believed some of his evidence was used in the injunction application without his knowledge or permission, due to the way the order was worded.
11. The landlord had not satisfactorily addressed his points about listening to his recordings, confirming receipt of his doctor’s letter, and ongoing parking issues. It also did not update him regarding removal of his neighbour’s vehicle as it said it would.
12. Its safeguarding manager had raised his hopes about being able to move, then he was told that managers had decided everything had been done correctly and there was no possibility of a move as he was no longer at risk. He requested details of the meeting where this decision was made.
13. The landlord’s standard of service, lack of action and lack of support had had a huge impact on him and caused him stress, emotional distress and anxiety.
The landlord replied to the resident’s email on 11 January 2022, but did not escalate his complaint or provide a formal response. The resident restated his dissatisfaction to the landlord on 14 January 2022. The same day, the landlord asked the resident to set out the remedies he was seeking in order for his complaint to be considered at the final stage of its process. He replied on 17 January 2022, saying that he sought a house move; answers to the questions in his previous emails; staff to be held accountable for their actions; and a review meeting, with all email correspondence from the previous three years to be brought to the meeting, and his audio recordings listened to during the meeting.
On 24 January 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident. Its letter said that it was bound by its lettings policy, which it had to apply in a fair way so that no tenant was treated more favourably. It again asked him to clarify what remedy or outcome he sought in respect of his complaint, noting that it did not offer properties as a remedy so rehousing was unlikely. The resident did not receive this letter.
On 30 March 2022 the Ombudsman assisted the resident in requesting to escalate his complaint with the landlord. On 4 April 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident and enclosed a copy of its letter sent on 24 January 2022. It said it was happy to review the resident’s complaint and asked once more what remedy or outcome he sought. The resident again did not receive this letter and contacted this Service on 28 April 2022. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 13 May 2022 and asked it to provide a final response to the resident by 20 May 2022.
The landlord contacted the resident on 17 May 2022 with an update regarding his neighbour’s bail conditions and the ongoing possession proceedings. It then spoke to him on the phone on 20 May 2022 and offered a choice of dates for a meeting with its stage two reviewers. A virtual meeting took place on 27 May 2022, following which the landlord issued its stage two response on 7 June 2022. This stated that:
1. It thanked the resident for taking the time to speak to it on 27 May 2022.
2. It had reviewed the case file and sought clarification from its stage one responder.
3. In relation to the resident’s complaint about communication and lack of support:
  1. It understood why the resident was frustrated, given his circumstances and concerns.
  2. It was satisfied that all legal methods at its disposal were being pursued to ensure there were no further incidents of ASB from the neighbour.
  3. It was pleased to hear that there had been no repeat of the ASB for a considerable time and since legal action commenced.
  4. It assured the resident of its safeguarding team’s continued attention to the matter, and asked him to inform it of any further concerns.
  5. It apologised for the distress caused to the resident due to a lack of contact from its safeguarding team and missed letters. It accepted that it should have done more to keep in regular contact with him.
  6. The findings of its investigation had been shared with managers in its safeguarding department, improvements had been made to its communications process, and further training had been provided.
4. In relation to the resident’s request for rehousing:
  1. It noted that the resident felt it should do more to rehouse him, having regard to his mental health and his experiences as a victim of ASB.
  1. It understood the resident’s concerns about his health.
  2. Due to its allocations policy, it was unable to assist with rehousing him outside the scope of choice based lettings.
  3. He had been registered for rehousing since 2012, but had made no bids or requests for properties since 2018.
  4. It recommended that a record of the resident’s medical history was provided to it, as this would assist with his housing application. However, it may still be a considerable period of time before a suitable property became available.
5. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint.
6. The resident had told it on 27 May 2022 that no amount of compensation would put right its previous failings in communication. Having considered the circumstances, it would like to offer him £100 in recognition of the impact of its service failure.
The resident later referred his complaint to this Service on 29 June 2022, explaining that he did not feel the landlord had investigated his complaint properly. He said that it did not seem to be aware of the GP letter he had provided and that it had downplayed its failings. He also felt he had been “ignored and lied to”.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman understands that the resident first reported ASB from his neighbour to the landlord in October 2018, and that he feels the landlord should have responded to his concerns about its handling of his initial reports as part of his current complaint. Under paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman would also not usually consider complaints that were not brought to a member landlord’s attention within six months of the matters arising. While the Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s argument in favour of treating the entire ASB case as a single matter, this investigation will focus on events that have occurred since March 2021. This is because limited information is available in relation to earlier events, and assessment of more historic actions and policies is unlikely to be helpful. However, the Ombudsman recognises that the resident expressed his disappointment with the landlord’s 2018 response in an email sent on 6 December 2018, and would suggest that the landlord could reasonably have treated this communication as a formal complaint. This background has been taken into account, particularly in relation to complaint handling.

ASB reports

When the resident reported issues with his neighbour on 7 March 2021, the landlord did not respond within the timeframe set out in its ASB policy (one working day for ASB, or five working days for nuisance). Although the neighbour’s previous threatening and intimidating behaviour towards the resident would have met the landlord’s definition of ASB, the behaviour he reported in March 2021 – shouting and rowdy behaviour – was more fitting of its definition of nuisance. Nevertheless, the landlord should have acted in accordance with its policy by responding to the resident within five working days.
When the landlord did contact the resident, after he chased it on 17 March 2021, he explained that he had lost confidence in its response due to the way it handled his case in 2018. The landlord’s response was appropriate: it acknowledged the resident’s concerns, provided reassurance, and gave helpful advice regarding evidence gathering (albeit that, according to the resident, this conflicted with advice it had given him in 2018 about making recordings). It said it would contact the resident again when it had more of an update, and did so on 8 April 2021, confirming that it intended to apply for an injunction. It then responded to the resident’s questions about the legal process and his neighbour’s interview within an acceptable period of time. When he said he was worried about being identified in the injunction proceedings, it was reasonable for the landlord to explore the possibility of an anonymous statement, or describing the resident’s recordings in an overarching statement of its own without exhibiting them.
As well as the court process, the resident evidently had concerns about the level of protection an injunction would provide for someone living in close proximity to his neighbour, who had been targeted by the neighbour in the past. These concerns were exacerbated by alarming incidents such as his neighbour’s car being set on fire, and (after the injunction was in place) the neighbour speaking about a burglary they had wrongly blamed the resident for in 2018. The resident described how he had changed his daily routine in order to avoid his neighbour, kept his blinds shut, and was scared to be alone in his property. The landlord should have taken this into account when assessing the risk to the resident, when considering how frequently to update him, and what support he may benefit from.
It appears that, while the landlord clearly considered the neighbour’s behaviour to be serious enough to warrant an injunction application, it underestimated the effect of the situation on the resident, perhaps due to the nature of the more recent incidents he had reported or the fact that he was not a court witness. It did not reassure him that it had taken any action in relation to the incidents he reported on 21 April 2021, or at least that it had included them in its injunction application. The Ombudsman appreciates that injunction applications can be resource intensive and that the landlord would have been coordinating a number of processes as well as managing other witnesses. However, it should also have given equal consideration to those who were affected by the situation and not directly involved in the proceedings, allocating additional resources where necessary to meet its customer care commitments. As a result of its oversight, it did not identify the extent of the resident’s vulnerability, and missed opportunities to provide relevant support.
The landlord updated the resident regarding the outcome of the injunction hearing the day after it took place, which was reasonable, assuming that no elevated risk to the resident had been identified on the day of the hearing; this Service has not seen any evidence of risk assessments being completed in relation to the resident, which is a cause for concern. It was appropriate for the landlord to communicate information about the hearing to the resident verbally and in the presence of his representative, giving both the opportunity to ask questions. The confusion regarding an exclusion term was unfortunate, but the landlord was simply passing on information it had received from the police, and was not to blame for the inaccuracy. Similarly, the landlord was not aware that the resident’s neighbour would be returning to their property two days after the injunction hearing, and it responded to his enquiry with an explanation after carrying out a prompt and appropriate investigation.
The ASB case relating to the resident’s neighbour extended beyond the reports made by the resident, and this Service has (rightly) not inspected the full case file. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, in view of the available information, it was reasonable for the landlord to seek an injunction against the resident’s neighbour in response to reports that it had received. It was also reasonable for it to return to court to seek a variation of the order, and later to begin possession proceedings in respect of the neighbour’s property. The injunction was in place within two months of the resident’s first report (in 2021) and appeared to have been sought swiftly in an effort to minimise the suffering caused to a group of affected residents. The Ombudsman accepts that ASB cases involving legal proceedings are often complex and a landlord’s plan of action may evolve on the basis of new incidents and information, fluctuating risk, legal advice, and other factors. The landlord’s approach may therefore have seemed inconsistent to the resident, but it acted in accordance with the Ombudsman’s expectations by providing updates and explanations when these were requested. Had it set expectations regarding frequency of contact with the resident in March 2021, his feeling of being ignored may have been reduced.
In summary, while there were some positive elements to the landlord’s approach, it focused on tackling the ASB issue and missed opportunities to support a vulnerable resident. This has resulted in a finding of service failure.

Rehousing request

The resident and landlord appeared to have differing expectations of a meeting that took place between the resident and a housing advisor in May 2021. The resident wanted to know how the landlord could assist him to move away from the property before he considered providing evidence in support of the injunction application. Due to the imminence of the court hearing, he saw the meeting as urgent, both in relation to providing evidence and being assured of adequate protection. However, the landlord had already made its court application without the resident’s evidence, and so the meeting was not time-sensitive from its perspective. While the landlord contacted the resident at least five times in April 2021 and three times in May 2021, it did not understand his personal circumstances sufficiently to recognise the impact of the meeting being delayed.
The information given to the resident by the landlord regarding routes for rehousing were reasonable, and an appropriate amount of detail (including links to websites) was provided. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will refer tenants asking to be rehoused due to ASB to the local authority, and its explanation on 5 May 2021 supported this, noting that it did not have the infrastructure or resource to rehouse tenants immediately or provide temporary accommodation. It also emphasised the importance of being fair to all its tenants in its letter of 24 January 2022. The Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s perception of the risk posed to him while he continued to live near to his neighbour, even when the injunction was in place, and does not underestimate the effect of this on his daily life and wellbeing. However, the landlord needed to make an objective assessment, and it had received no evidence (to the Ombudsman’s knowledge) that the resident was at any increased risk compared to others, or that the neighbour was targeting him specifically. This was supported by the fact that no targeted incidents ultimately occurred during the timeframe of this investigation. Once the neighbour had been removed from the property, it was appropriate for the landlord to conclude that risk from that particular neighbour was no longer a significant factor in the resident’s rehousing status. His own feelings, while valid, did not justify the landlord stepping outside its policy to consider an emergency/managed move.
The resident told the landlord on at least two occasions, including in his formal complaint, that he was struggling to complete a form relating to medical moves, as it seemed to be aimed at someone with a physical disability and no guidance had been provided. Besides a general offer of support, the landlord did not acknowledge or respond to this issue. It would have been good practice for it to explore in more detail what the resident’s concerns were (for example, whether they related to accessing and completing the form on a computer, knowing what to write, or providing proofs), and for a qualified member of staff to go through the form with him and his representative. However, it is unclear whether the form in question was one produced by the landlord, or by the local authority in connection with its allocations scheme. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s safeguarding team spoke to the resident on several occasions, and that this sort of practical support may be something it could arrange with the resident’s agreement. Overall, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s response to the resident’s rehousing request was adequate.

Complaint handling

The resident first expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to his recent ASB reports on 7 May 2021. He received no reply to his email, leading him to restate his complaint on 8 June 2021. This time the landlord acknowledged receipt of his complaint and said its ASB and housing management team would respond within ten working days. It was appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident by phone on 9 June 2021 and to confirm that the correct process had been followed with regard to a letter of authority. In fact, the LOA should have been in place before the landlord corresponded with the resident’s representative on his behalf in any capacity, but it was good practice for the landlord to use its complaints process as a way of auditing this function.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 2 July 2021. This was 18 working days after the complaint was made (for the second time) on 8 June 2021, and the delay obviously caused frustration to the resident as he chased the response as soon as it became overdue. Nevertheless, the response was thorough and effectively answered many of the questions made by the resident in his complaint, including those relating to his neighbour’s non-attendance at court, his request for a copy of the injunction, and the landlord’s response to reports of littering. It apologised for occasions where it had fallen short of its expected standard, such as not contacting the resident about two incidents he reported shortly before the injunction hearing, and committed to certain actions in order to address ongoing issues such as parking. Some explanations were less convincing, such as why it did not listen to the resident’s recordings when he asked or why it did not contact the resident about his housing options. However, it acknowledged these matters and gave the resident the opportunity to discuss them if he disagreed. It also offered to support the resident, although this offer was unspecific and put the onus on the resident to tell the landlord how it could assist him; it would have been more helpful for the landlord to set out the different forms of support it was able to offer, or to signpost him to more information.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was reasonable for the landlord not to consider events that occurred outside the preceding six-month period in its complaint response, and to quote its complaints policy in explaining this. If it had previously led the resident to believe that it would include these matters in its response, this was misleading, and the resident’s distress would be understandable. However, this Service has not been able to inspect any documentary evidence in relation to this, and so cannot make a finding. What is more important is that the landlord was aware of the continued impact of the 2018 events on the resident. The complaint response did not demonstrate an understanding of the resident’s particular concerns, vulnerability and support needs, or that the 2021 ASB investigation had been informed by such an understanding.
The resident objected to several aspects of the landlord’s response on 7 July 2021, but received no reply until 16 December 2021, despite the involvement of this Service. The delay of over five months was unacceptable. When the landlord did respond, it did not identify that it had previously issued a formal response on 2 July 2021 and issued a second stage one response rather than escalating the resident’s complaint to stage two. This was indicative of a confused and disjointed approach by the landlord, and had the effect of stalling the progress of the resident’s complaint within its internal complaints procedure. The landlord’s poor, protracted complaint handling compounded the significant distress already caused to the resident by his experiences of ASB.
The response issued on 16 December 2021 addressed points discussed verbally with the resident on 14 December 2021, so the Ombudsman has not been able to assess its completeness. The response provided a narrative of events and repeated some of the points the landlord had made previously. In addition, it accepted that it should have been clearer about the purpose of the resident’s meeting with its housing advisor in May 2021, and apologised for this. It also apologised for its limited explanation of events following the injunction hearing and provided further detail regarding developments in the legal proceedings. It agreed that its communication had been poor since June 2021, with its evaluation of this as being “totally unacceptable” and sincere apology giving deserved validation to the resident’s upset. However, beyond apologising and undertaking to keep the resident updated in future, it offered no material redress such as compensation. This was at odds with its customer care policy, which indicates that compensation is appropriate in circumstances where its service failure has caused inconvenience, annoyance or distress.
The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response on 5 January 2022. The landlord replied four working days later, but neglected to escalate his complaint at this point. When the resident repeated his concerns on 14 January 2022, the landlord asked him to set out the remedies he was seeking; the resident provided a clear list of proposed remedies on 17 January 2022, but still the landlord did not escalate his complaint to stage two. Instead, it wrote to the resident on 24 January 2022, noting that his preferred remedy of a house move was unlikely and asking again what remedies he sought. This was obstructive of the landlord, as the resident had listed a number of other remedies besides a move.
It was unclear why the landlord wrote to the resident by post, as his preference had been to communicate via email and there had been no issue with this method previously. The resident later said that he did not receive this letter or a later letter sent on 4 April 2022, and expressed his suspicion that the landlord may have produced the letters at a later date. The landlord denied doing so, and the Ombudsman cannot say for sure whether the letters were sent or not. It is also unclear whether the landlord was aware that the resident could not read and relied on his representatives to deal with his post. In any case, the landlord knew that the resident had a representative who did not live with him, and due to this, it would have been preferable for it to send any communications via email, so that these could be accessed and shared with the resident more quickly. At the very least, after receiving no response to its letter of 24 January 2022, it should have checked the resident’s preferences regarding method of communication before posting a second letter.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 7 June 2022, more than a year after the resident had first complained. The response apologised for the additional distress caused to the resident due to missed letters and accepted that the landlord should have done more to keep in contact with him. It was appropriate for it to demonstrate learning from the case by telling the resident that the findings of its investigation had been shared with its safeguarding department, that it had made improvements to its communications, and that its staff had received further training. Had it not done so, the Ombudsman would have found severe maladministration in relation to complaint handling and would have ordered a management review of the case in order to address the reasons for missed communications.
The stage two response engaged thoroughly with both aspects of the resident’s ongoing complaint, but despite partially upholding the complaint, the landlord offered less than half the maximum amount of compensation allowed by its customer care policy. Given that the landlord had made a number of acknowledged omissions in responding to the resident’s ASB reports, denied him a final response to his complaint for over 12 months, and accepted responsibility for its failures, the Ombudsman finds that this level of compensation (£100) was disproportionately low. An order for increased compensation has therefore been made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports;
2. no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused;
3. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord usually responded reasonably to non-targeted incidents of ASB and nuisance reported to it by the resident. It dealt effectively with the ASB by commencing injunction and eviction proceedings. However, it sometimes delayed in replying to the resident’s communications, did not always keep him updated regarding matters that affected him, and did not identify the extent of his vulnerability and concerns. Had it taken the time to set expectations regarding frequency of contact and to understand the impact of the neighbour’s behaviour on the resident, the distress and uncertainty caused to him may have been reduced.
The landlord gave the resident appropriate advice and information about rehousing. It acted in accordance with its policies and explained that house moves due to ASB were dealt with by the local authority. A meeting with its housing advisor was delayed and there was confusion about the purpose of the meeting, but in the Ombudsman’s opinion this did not cause significant detriment to the resident.
The landlord obstructed the resident’s access to its complaints procedure, resulting in two stage one responses being issued and the final response being issued more than a year after the resident complained. This was indicative of disorganised and ineffective complaint handling. The responses accepted responsibility and apologised for some of the landlord’s failures, but did not offer sufficient redress for these.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Reiterate its apology to the resident for its failures in responding to his ASB reports and associated complaint.
2. Pay the resident £800, comprising:
  1. £200 for its service failure in handling his ASB reports;
  2. £500 for its delays in handling his associated complaint;
  3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him as a result of its failures in handling his ASB reports and complaint.

If the £100 offered by the landlord in its stage two complaint response has already been paid to the resident, this should be deducted from the amount above.

Provide monthly progress updates to the resident regarding the ongoing events in relation to the neighbour’s eviction up until the eviction is finalised and completed. The progress updates should be sent to the resident via his preferred contact method. Should the landlord fail to complete a progress update, it should pay the resident £10 for every missed update.
Review its internal communications process and provide further training when it relates to dealing with vulnerable residents and keeping residents updated on the progress of events in accordance with its policy.
Review its internal complaints handling process and provide further training in relation to ensuring residents are regularly responded to and updated, complaints are appropriately escalated and responded to within the timeframe specified in its policy. If the training the landlord referenced within the stage two response is in line with what this Service has mentioned, the landlord can submit evidence of any changes or improvements the landlord has made.

The landlord is ordered to complete a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (updated in April 2022) within twelve weeks of the date of this report. A copy of the self-assessment must be provided to this Service.
Evidence of compliance to be provided to this Service within four/twelve weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord offers to arrange a meeting or call with the resident and his representative to answer any outstanding questions they may have about rehousing, such as completion of forms and the practicalities of applying for a mutual exchange or transfer. The offer should be made in writing, should propose a selection of dates for the meeting, and should clearly state who the meeting will be with and what it will cover.