Raven Housing Trust Limited (202215832)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215832

Raven Housing Trust Limited

17 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a neighbour dispute.
2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant. The resident lives at the property with her partner and children. There are no known vulnerabilities recorded by the landlord.
4. The property is a semi-detached house, situated on a new build estate. There are 2 vehicle parking bays in front of the property. A parking bay is allocated to the resident, and another is allocated to the adjoining neighbour.
5. The tenancy agreement sets out the obligations of the resident and the landlord. Of particular note:

a.     The landlord will:

i.        take reasonable steps to prevent anti-social behaviour (ASB) from happening again, if following investigation the landlord believes there to be good grounds for complaint. These steps may include taking legal action

ii.      take firm action if the resident, members of their household or a visitor causes ASB. This may lead to the permanent loss of the resident’s home.

b.     The resident:

i.        must not do anything, or permit anything to be done in the property, or in the locality, which could reasonably cause nuisance, annoyance, alarm, distress. Relevant examples of nuisance given include:

(1)  parking any vehicle, caravan, or trailer inconsiderately

(2)  harassing or assaulting or causing alarm or distress to any person in the property or locality, for whatever reason. This includes but is not limited to the person’s race, colour or ethnic origin, nationality, gender, sexuality, disability, age, religion or other belief

ii.      must not park a motor vehicle in any garden forming part of the tenancy, or on other land owned by the landlord, unless it is taxed and roadworthy. Furthermore, the vehicle must not cause a nuisance or annoyance to neighbours.

6. The landlord and resident signed a good neighbour agreement at the beginning of the tenancy:

a.     The landlord agreed to:

i.        fully investigate complaints of ASB, offer a free mediation service, and keep complainants fully informed of the progress of their complaint

ii.      work closely with other agencies, such as the police and local councils in order to deal with complaints effectively

iii.    provide a confidential service and offer support to victims of ASB

iv.    take the strongest possible action, including legal action where necessary, to ensure a peaceful living environment for all residents

b.     The resident agreed to park only in areas specifically designated by the landlord. The resident also agreed not to park or allow parking of untaxed or unroadworthy vehicles on the landlord’s land.

Relevant policies and procedures

7. The landlord has a 3 stage complaint process:

a.     The landlord will first try to resolve a complaint within 5 working days, at its ‘get on track’ stage. This stage may be by-passed if the resident wishes to immediately raise a formal complaint.

b.     The landlord will provide a stage 1 ‘formal complaint’ response within 10 working days. The landlord will respond to stage 2 ‘appeals’ within 20 working days.

8. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will normally only pay compensation where a resident has suffered financial loss, or where there has been assessable inconvenience, including distress. Compensation can include rectifying its mistakes or making a financial or non-financial goodwill gesture. A resident can appeal an offer of compensation.
9. The landlord has a high level ASB policy, which sets out its general approach to tackling ASB, through prevention, support, and enforcement. The landlord will take a victim centred approach, keeping victims informed, agreeing action plans, and will provide additional support in conjunction with other agencies where necessary. It will support or signpost perpetrators where they are willing to accept help to improve behaviour. It will work with partners and stakeholders to undertake a multi-agency approach to prevent and reduce ASB. It will encourage the use of coaching and mediation. It will take action and will use the range of powers available to it, where the landlord considers these could provide an effective remedy. The landlord does not have a standalone ASB procedure.

Scope of investigation

10. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider and resolve the issues whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred.
11. Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states, “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the [landlord] as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”. This investigation focuses on events from 4 January 2022 until 16 August 2022. This being 6 months prior to the formal complaint being made, through to when the landlord’s complaint process was exhausted. However, the investigation references earlier email communication from the landlord dated 17 December 2021, which is relevant to the determination of the substantive complaint. Other events referenced outside of this period, are included to give context only.
12. This investigation focuses on specific matters arising from the landlord’s handling of the neighbour dispute, as clarified by the resident within communications with this Service on 24 September 2023.

Summary of events

13. There had been a longstanding neighbour dispute between the resident and their neighbour. The dispute started when a group of children knocked at the resident’s door before running off, which the resident believed to be racially motivated. The resident believed this behaviour had been encouraged by the neighbour’s children. There had also been an ongoing neighbour dispute concerning the use of 2 allocated vehicle parking bays, located to the front of the resident’s property.
14. The landlord emailed the resident on 17 December 2021, stating:

a.     It was alleged that the resident’s partner had shouted at the neighbours from a window on 15 December 2021, as they arrived home with their children. It said it had “a transcript of what is said to have arisen and I can see no justification for this unnecessary interaction with your neighbours by your partner”.

b.     It was aware that the neighbour had “found a number of unexplained nails in [their] tyres, which seems very unlikely to be by chance and I will be raising matter with the police”.

c.      There was 1 parking space for the resident’s use. All cars must be taxed and in a roadworthy condition, but the resident’s vehicle was untaxed and did not have a valid MOT.

15. A police witness statement was made after completion of the landlord’s internal complaint process. This indicates that words of advice were given to the resident in January 2022, in relation to public order incidents that did not meet the criminal threshold.
16. The landlord and resident communicated several times in January 2022:

a.     The resident’s partner phoned the landlord on 4 January 2022, unhappy with the tone of the email sent about parking. The resident’s partner said that the landlord had not asked for their side.

b.     The landlord emailed the resident on 7 January 2022. It thanked the resident for removing an untaxed vehicle from the allocated parking bay. It reminded the resident that she only had use of 1 bay. To address any unresolved issues between the resident and the neighbour, it encouraged the resident to consider mediation.

c.      The resident emailed the landlord on 11 January 2022, stating that the landlord had wrongly accused the resident’s partner of shouting at the neighbour and putting nails in the neighbour’s tyres. This had resulted in the police attending the property. The resident asked the landlord to provide the evidence it had relied upon to make such accusations. The resident suggested that the landlord should investigate such reports to a higher standard in the future. The resident said the landlord’s approach was discriminative and biased. She suggested that mediation was no longer in the best interests of her family. She said that she had tried to speak to the landlord to discuss the allegations made, but it was not returning her phone calls.

17. Evidence seen by this Service indicates that the resident made several allegations about the neighbour in February 2022. This included the use of racist language by the neighbour toward the resident’s partner, and the finding of nails in the resident’s own car tyres. The neighbour made counter complaints about the resident.
18. The landlord emailed the resident on 11 February 2022, to explain that its caseworker had fallen ill. The landlord noted that the resident had been asked to consider mediation and asked whether she would be willing to give this a try. The resident responded on 11 February 2022, agreeing to mediation.
19. The landlord and resident exchanged several emails between 17 February 2022 and 18 February 2022:

a.     The landlord said a case had been opened following the resident’s reports about a “racial slur” made by the neighbour, however the neighbour had denied this. As there was no evidence, the incident had been noted on the file in case of future incidents. It noted that the resident had agreed to mediation, which it would arrange.

b.     The resident reminded the landlord that her family had been accused of shouting at the neighbour and damaging the neighbour’s car, without evidence. The landlord had sent the police to her home to give her a warning about this. She questioned if the landlord had done the same with the neighbour after she reported damage to her own tyres. The resident said that the incidents with the neighbour were escalating.

c.      The landlord said that it could not tell the police to attend her home, so the police must have had other reasons to visit. It could not confirm whether the neighbour had also been visited by the police. The landlord said it was not taking sides. Complaints had been opened for both parties and it was taking both complaints seriously. Further action could only be taken when there was evidence.

d.     The resident asked if the landlord was suggesting that her family were criminals. She refuted the landlord’s claim that it had not sent the police to her door. The landlord had previously sent an email, stating it was raising matters with the police. The police had also told her they attended her property at the request of the landlord. The resident was unhappy that the landlord had denied this and suggested that the parties were being treated differently.

e.     The resident felt that the dispute might be resolved if the neighbour stopped parking in the bays outside the resident’s property.

20. The resident chased the landlord on 4 March 2022, for an update on the mediation. The landlord apologised for its delay in arranging the referral. It said this had taken longer than usual, due to staff sickness. The landlord had since spoken to the mediator who had accepted its referral.
21. The landlord continued to communicate with the resident, neighbour, and the police between 14 May 2022 and 30 May 2022, in connection with the ongoing neighbour dispute. The main points of discussion are summarised as follows:

a.     The landlord told the resident that both she and her neighbour, had their own allocated parking bay outside the property. This had been explained at sign-up. The landlord clarified that the builder had been unable to put a parking bay outside the neighbour’s property due to the location of their property. This was part of the covenant attached to the title deeds of the houses, which could not be changed.

b.     If mediation did not proceed, the landlord said it would consider issuing a tenancy caution to both parties. The resident expressed dissatisfaction that this was its only remedy.

c.      The landlord told the resident that the neighbour had strongly denied being racist.

d.     The landlord emphasised to both the resident and neighbour, the importance of minimising contact with each other. The resident suggested that if the neighbour really wanted no contact, the neighbour would park elsewhere. The landlord was given permission to offer this as a suggestion to the neighbour, which it did.

e.     The neighbour provided the landlord with a recording of the resident and her partner, which the landlord had listened to.

f.        The landlord told the police that the resident had turned down its offer of mediation, but she had been asked to reconsider her position on this. It highlighted the resident’s concerns that the neighbour was conducting a campaign of intimidation, and the neighbour had muttered a racial slur. It said, the family were now living in fear of a racist attack. It stated that if mediation was rejected, “the only other option is the tenancy caution”.

22. The landlord continued to received complaints from the neighbour about the resident during June 2022. The landlord told the resident that it had listened to a recording, in which the resident’s partner was heard calling the neighbour “a racist”. This Service has been provided with snippets of a subsequent voice recording made by the resident, in which the resident and landlord discuss the content of the recording. The resident asked the landlord to provide a copy of the recording made by the neighbour. The landlord said it would listen to the recording again and provide a written quotation, but it could not promise to share the recordings, as this would be a data breach.
23. The landlord continued to receive complaints from the resident about the neighbour during July 2022. Counter complaints were also made by the neighbour about the resident.
24. The landlord sent an email to the resident on 1 July 2022, which appears to be in response to an earlier communication from the resident, which has not been seen by this Service. The landlord reaffirmed that it was unable to share the recording it had listened to, nor was it able to share any letters sent to the neighbour in connection with the dispute. It appreciated that it must be difficult for the resident in view of her belief about the neighbour, but it could only act based on evidence. It noted the resident’s statement that neither she, nor any household members had used intimidation or aggression towards the neighbours.
25. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 4 July 2022. In regard to the complaint brought to this Service, the resident said:

a.     The landlord had sent the police to her property on 11 January 2022, based on allegations made by the neighbour. The landlord had not explained why such action was necessary.

b.     The landlord had told the resident on 12 January 2022, that no action could be taken without proof. The resident said if this is the case, why had the police been sent to her property.

c.      On 18 February 2022, the landlord refuted that it had sent the police to the resident’s property. After the resident produced a copy of its email dated 17 December 2021, it agreed it had inferred it was sharing information with the police. The landlord had suggested there had been “misconduct” on its part.

d.     The landlord had told the resident on 16 May 2022, that it was considering issuing a tenancy caution on advice of the police. The resident was unhappy with this approach, so asked to meet the landlord on 25 June 2022 to discuss the matter further.

e.     The resident’s partner had tried to contact the landlord 8 times on 20 June 2022, but was unable to get through. The resident believed the landlord was purposely ignoring his calls, because it answered when she called from a private number.

f.        During a telephone conversation with the landlord on 20 June 2022, the landlord indicated that it had listened to part of a recording provided to it. The resident said the landlord accused the resident’s partner of being racist toward the neighbour, which was untrue. When she asked the landlord for more information, it said it would need to relisten to the recording, which showed incompetence.

g.     The resident spoke to the landlord on 27 June 2022 about the accusations of racism. During this conversation, the landlord inferred it was disappointed in them. The resident was unhappy about the landlord’s choice of words, as the resident’s partner had not done anything wrong. The family had been caused alarm and distress.

h.     The resident said she had asked the landlord on 5 occasions since 14 January 2022, why it had sent the police to her property. While she had been promised a response, the matter remained unresolved. The resident said she was also still waiting for evidence of the recording made of her partner.

i.        The resident suggested that the landlord was ill equipped to deal with people who were suffering the effects of racism and its staff needed retraining. To exemplify, when she raised concern that it “could be a firework through our door next”, a member of its staff said they thought she was being “over the top”.

26. The landlord escalated the neighbour dispute to its tenancy enforcement team on 7 July 2022.
27. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaints and indicated that it would provide a response by 18 July 2022. This communication was undated.
28. The resident emailed the landlord on 10 July 2022, in response to its email of 1 July 2022. The resident suggested the landlord believed everything the neighbour told it but chose to ignore the resident’s concerns. She asked the landlord to provide a copy of the recording of her partner.
29. The landlord met with the resident on 14 July 2022, to agree the scope of its complaint investigation. The landlord emailed the resident following the meeting. It acknowledged there had been a lack of communication on its part and said that it could understand why the resident felt she had been treated unfairly. The landlord said that it would consider allocating another caseworker if the resident remained unsatisfied with the outcome of the complaint. It would provide a further update on 20 July 2022 and a full complaint response on 27 July 2022.
30. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 22 July 2022. The landlord said:

a.     The police approached the landlord in December 2021, to make enquiries regarding potential issues and criminal activities in the area. The landlord suggested that the police speak with the resident, with a view to obtaining any information she held. There was no evidence to support the view that the landlord sent the police to talk to her. It suggested this was either a poor choice of words or a misunderstanding by the police. As such it was unable to uphold this element of the complaint.

b.     It upheld the resident’s complaint that it had denied contacting the police. It said it was clear the resident was providing accurate information and the matter was not fully investigated before the reply was sent. It apologised for the distress caused.

c.      It was unable to find any evidence to support the view that the police recommended the landlord serve a tenancy caution. It said it was sorry for any distress that this may have caused and indicated that this element of the complaint had been upheld. It affirmed that only the landlord could issue a tenancy caution.

d.     It upheld the resident’s complaint about the recording. The complaint handler had listened to the recording but was unable to share this with the resident without permission from the owner. It appreciated that this was frustrating. It said it should have considered whether it was appropriate to discuss the contents with the resident at the time. It recognised this had caused further distress, for which it apologised.

e.     It upheld the resident’s complaint about its lack of communication. There was evidence that the resident and her partner had called the landlord many times since May 2022 trying to get updates or answers. This was not how the landlord aimed to deal with its residents, for which it apologised. It recognised that the landlord had not managed the neighbour dispute effectively and offered the resident £250 compensation in relation to the complaint elements it had upheld.

31. The landlord’s tenancy enforcement team emailed the resident on 28 July 2022, with a viewing to arranging a joint meeting with the police, to agree a way forward. The resident responded on 1 August 2022, indicating the earliest she could meet was September 2022. However, based on prior experience, the resident was concerned whether the landlord was using the correct measures.
32. The resident escalated the complaint on 1 August 2022, on the following grounds:

a.     The landlord had not upheld the resident’s complaint concerning its involvement with the police in January 2022, which led to the police attending the property. Although the landlord had conceded it had instigated the police visit, it had failed to answer all of the resident’s questions. Since the police issued a warning to her partner at the front door, the resident wanted the landlord to confirm what evidence it had given to the police.

b.     The landlord indicated in its stage 1 response, that a police officer approached the landlord regarding reports of criminal activities in the area. The resident questioned why this information had not been shared previously.

c.      The resident questioned why the landlord sent the police to her door and wondered if the landlord was accusing her household of being criminals. She said that the landlord had still not provided the resident with evidence that the police officer approached the landlord first.

d.     Although the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint concerning the tenancy caution, the resident felt the member of staff involved should offer an apology.

e.     While the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint in connection with the recording, it had not said what would happen next. The resident wanted the landlord to provide greater clarity about the recording.

f.        The resident said that its staff must be held accountable for their actions. It should not have taken the landlord 7 months to get answers, when the complaint handler was able to come to a conclusion within a week. Additionally, the landlord had not explained its next steps.

g.     The amount of compensation offered was not proportionate to the level of distress and worry caused. While the landlord had upheld parts of the resident’s complaint, she did not consider the complaint to be satisfactorily resolved when there were so many unanswered questions.

33. The landlord emailed the resident on 3 August 2022. The landlord reassured the resident about the purpose of its joint meeting with the police.
34. The landlord gave its stage 2 final response on 16 August 2022. The landlord said:

a.     It was sorry if new information had been shared in its stage 1 response, which had not previously been shared.

b.     It was common for the police to approach the landlord where there were reports of potential crime in an area. It was reasonable for it to assist the police with their enquiries, since the landlord had itself had reports of ASB. The landlord referred the police to the resident as potential victims of crime, to assist the police investigation. There was no evidence to suggest the resident was accused of anything. It stressed that the landlord did not ask the police to speak to the resident in the way she was suggesting. As such, it did not uphold this element of the resident’s complaint.

c.      It had sight of an email from the police officer to the landlord, which substantiated that the landlord was approached by the police about reports of potential criminal acts in the area. As this email was not its to share, it was unable to provide a copy. It was sorry if any explanation from the police officer was taken in the wrong way.

d.     It had no information regarding a police warning issued to the resident. The resident was directed to the police if she wanted more information about this.

e.     It had a duty of care to any resident, if it felt a potential criminal act had taken place in its area of operation. However, in relation to its motivation to report unexplained nails in the neighbour’s tyre, it did not get to raise this with the police before the police approached it.

f.        It upheld the resident’s complaint, that the matter had taken longer than was acceptable to resolve, for which it apologised. The landlord had taken learnings from the resident’s experience. This had resulted in changes to the way it handled ASB cases, the details of which it listed.

g.     It had aimed to answer the resident’s questions and reach a satisfactory resolution. However, not all the information was its to share.

h.     It believed there had been some confusion around the tenancy caution, nonetheless, it apologised for any confusion and any distress caused. As part of the complaint resolution, it had requested an apology be sent to the resident from the member of staff involved.

i.        It had already upheld the resident’s complaint about the recordings. It should not have made comment on recordings that it did not have permission to share. This had been discussed with the member of staff involved, and learnings from the case had been taken.

j.        It accepted there had been delays in the way the case was managed and there were issues with communication on a number of levels, for which it had apologised. It said it had upheld most of the resident’s complaint.

k.      It said, financial recompense for distress was always difficult to determine. Its offer of compensation was made in line with guidance from the Housing Ombudsman. However, it had now reviewed the level of compensation offered, which it had increased to £700. It also offered a further £100 compensation to reflect the delay in its complaint handling.

Actions to note subsequent to completion of the landlord’s internal complaint process

35. An apology was sent by a member of the landlord’s staff, in relation to the tenancy caution. The landlord said it emailed the resident about the tenancy caution on 21 June 2022. It acknowledged that it should have made it clearer that it was no longer intending to issue this. It understoodthe resident had been caused continued worry.
36. The resident told this Service on 24 September 2023, that she wanted the landlord to take accountability for its actions. She considered its offer of compensation to be disproportionate to the level of distress that had been caused. In order to resolve her complaint, the resident wanted:

a.     The landlord to provide evidence showing that it was the police who originally contacted the landlord.

b.     The landlord to explain why it said the police had suggested issuing the tenancy caution, when this was not the case.

c.      The landlord to explain why it made accusations towards the resident’s partner, after listening to a recording. The resident states that this was a false accusation, which resulted in the resident being denied a service or help from the landlord.

d.     The landlord to explain why it treated her case “as irrelevant”.

Assessment and findings

37. It is not in dispute that the landlord did not fully investigate the circumstances under which the police came to attend the resident’s property in January 2022. This was accepted by the landlord, for which it apologised. Nevertheless, the resident’s frustration about this was understandable.
38. The landlord stated that it suggested the police speak to the resident, as part of a wider investigation into criminal acts in the area. The landlord has not provided evidence of this to this Service. Neither did the landlord provide evidence of the email, substantiating that the police approached the landlord first. Evidence that the police visited the resident to give a warning has been seen, however there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord was aware of the warning at the time it provided its stage 2 response. While the resident wanted reassurance that it was the police who instigated contact with the landlord first, it has not been possible to determine this based on fact.
39. However, this Service makes the following observations about the landlord’s approach, following reports of damage to the neighbour’s vehicle. The landlord had a policy and a contractual obligation to take reasonable steps to address reported ASB, if the landlord believed “there to be good grounds for complaint”. While it was reasonable for the landlord to bring allegations to the resident’s attention, the tone of the landlord’s email dated 17 December 2001, was adversarial and caused unnecessary worry for the resident.
40. Regardless of which organisation approached who first, the resident was led to believe that the landlord was escalating matters with the police. Without any witnesses or other evidence to corroborate the damage to the neighbour’s car, this Service suggests that the landlord’s approach was heavy handed and unfair. A more proportionate response, based on the evidence available to it at that time, would have been to encourage the neighbour to report the matter to the police themselves, and continue to explore opportunities for resolution. The landlord’s approach eroded the resident’s trust in the landlord and caused the resident to worry about the impartiality of the landlord’s investigation.
41. It is not in dispute that the landlord considered issuing a tenancy caution. From the evidence seen, this was mentioned by the landlord to the resident and the police in May 2022. The landlord considered this to be an alternative to mediation, if mediation was rejected. The landlord recognised it had caused continued worry to the resident by not explaining sooner that it had decided not to issue the tenancy caution, for which it apologised. This showed that the landlord was taking responsibility for its failing and was attempting to put things right.
42. It is appreciated that the resident wanted the landlord to explain why it suggested the police recommended issuing the tenancy caution if this was not the case. It is noted that the landlord conceded there was no evidence to support this, for which it apologised. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact and evidence of its actions and communications, relating to each casefile, which can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request. Failing to create and record information accurately, results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate and contributes to unsatisfactory communication and redress. In this case, the landlord’s inability to provide the resident with the explanation she was seeking was inappropriate and left this element of the resident’s complaint unresolved.
43. It is understandable that the resident would want to see a copy of the transcript or recording discussed with the landlord, in view of the allegations made about the resident’s partner. While the allegations were understandably distressing for the resident, it was unsurprising that the landlord was unable to share this information, if it did not have permission to do so. While the landlord might have tried to seek permission to share the recording, it was unlikely that its source would have agreed to this.
44. The landlord accepted that it should not have made comment on recordings that could not be shared. It said this had been addressed with the member of staff involved. This shows the landlord was taking responsibility for its actions and was learning from its mistakes. Although the resident has stated the landlord’s false accusations resulted in the resident being denied a service and help from the landlord, no evidence has been seen to suggest that the landlord withdrew any services from the resident as a result of the recording.
45. The landlord accepted that its communications had been inadequate, and it had not managed the resident’s neighbour dispute effectively. These factors were likely to have contributed to the resident’s feeling that the landlord had treated her concerns as “irrelevant” and without impartiality. This was unreasonable and caused the resident distress, uncertainty, and worry. However, it is also noted that the landlord does not have a standalone ASB procedure to give staff direction. The operation of such a procedure might have avoided some of the issues surfaced in this case around its case management. The landlord may wish to consider expanding its high level ASB policy. Better still, it should consider developing a standalone ASB procedure to satisfy itself, and its residents, that its decision making is consistent and fair in all cases. In line with section 12 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, such a procedure must be made available to the public.
46. This Service appreciates that this was a complex case, involving allegations and counter allegations between neighbours. It was particularly sensitive in view of the allegations made by both parties about racism. The landlord recognised that there had been failings. It offered an apology and compensation, made changes to the way it handled reports of ASB, and addressed matters arising with relevant staff members. The landlord also agreed to allocate a new caseworker if the resident remained dissatisfied with its stage 2 response. This demonstrates that the landlord was being fair, was trying to put things right and had taken learnings from outcomes, in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
47. When considered cumulatively, this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the neighbour dispute. Although the landlord took positive steps to put things right, the landlord’s case management was at times heavy handed and fuelled the dispute. As well as causing the resident considerable distress, its approach would have made it more difficult for the parties to reach a timely and amicable resolution. In addition, the landlord was unable to fully resolve the resident’s substantive complaint due to issues with its record keeping and information management.

The landlord’s complaint handlings

48. This Service observed a small delay of 4 days in the landlord issuing its stage 1 response, for which the landlord apologised and offered £100 compensation. This was fair and in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This Service accepts that there are occasions when a landlord may need more time to fully respond to a complaint, however the Housing Ombudsman’s Code states that any extension should be agreed by both parties. While the landlord told the resident when it would provide its response, there is no evidence to suggest that this was agreed by the resident. The landlord’s complaint handling was largely compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, with the exception of a couple of minor failings.
49. While there were minor failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, no material detriment was caused to the resident by the landlord’s actions. Therefore, in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling, this Service finds no maladministration.

Determination (decision)

50. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the neighbour dispute.
51. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

52. The landlord recognised there had been service failings in its handling of the neighbour dispute and made a positive effort to put things right. However, the landlord’s approach fuelled the neighbour dispute, and caused considerable distress to the resident. In addition, the landlord was unable to fully resolve the resident’s complaint due to issues with the landlord’s record keeping.
53. There were minor failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This included a complaint handling delay of 4 days at stage 1 for which the landlord offered compensation, and the landlord’s failure to agree a complaint extension with the resident. However, no material detriment was caused to the resident by the landlord’s actions.

Orders

54. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay compensation of £700 to the resident, in recognition of the distress caused by the landlord’s handling of the neighbour dispute. This has been determined in the line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. If the landlord has already paid £700 compensation previously offered, this payment is reduced to nil.
55. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:

a.     Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified.

b.     Initiate and complete a review of its ASB policy. The landlord should consider expanding its ASB policy, as a means of improving its ASB case management. Better still, the landlord should consider developing a standalone ASB procedure, which thereafter must be made available to the public.

56. The landlord must provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

57. The landlord’s attention is drawn to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management. The landlord is encouraged to take learnings from this report in view of the failings identified with its record keeping.
58. The landlord should write to this Service to confirm its intention in relation to this recommendation within 6 weeks of the date of this report.