Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202213714)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213714

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited

21 July 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:

a.     handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) against a neighbour.

b.     complaint handling.

2. This report also examines the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

3. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a three bedroom semi detached house. The resident has advised that she suffers from anxiety, depression and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
4. For the complaints process with the landlord, the resident had an advocate acting on her behalf who was her local councillor.
5. The landlord’s ASB policy promotes partnership working with agencies such as the police, probation and victim support and confirms that it will use a range of actions to resolve ASB issues such as mediation, warning interviews/letters, and acceptable behaviour contracts (ABC). It will risk assess each case.
6. The landlord‘s complaints policy has three stages:

a.     informal complaints – where it aims to resolve dissatisfaction quickly within 5 working days.

b.     stage one –a full response within 10 working days.

c.      stage two –a full response within 15 working days.

Summary of events

7. The resident has reported ASB from her neighbour for a number of years. According to the landlord, most complaints led to counter allegations being made. These included abuse, foul language, intimidation, bullying, threats, and deliberate malicious acts.
8. On 24 January 2022, the landlord and the police visited the resident and her neighbour. They were both advised not to have any contact with each other or retaliate as this would escalate things further. The resident said that the landlord had told her that it “would not and had no interest in viewing the CCTV evidence” that she held. An undated witness statement from a family member of the resident was sent to the landlord. It reported that they had heard the landlord say:

a.     it wasn’t interested in the CCTV as it didn’t have time to sit and watch it

b.     I’m sick of all of this, it’s pathetic

c.      I shouldn’t be dealing with all these allegations and counter allegations

9. On 4 March 2022, the resident was accused by the neighbour of harassing one of their visitors. A tenancy breach letter was served on the resident by the landlord dated 16 March 2022, as detailed in the stage one complaint response. The resident however, states that she had video evidence showing she had spoken to the neighbour’s visitor as she knew him as a childhood friend. This resulted in the resident submitting counter allegations and video evidence to the landlord.
10. On 21 March 2022, the landlord spoke to both the resident and her neighbour “at length” to resolve the counter allegations. Both parties agreed to attend mediation.
11. According to the Councillor’s statement in the stage one complaint, the resident spoke to the landlord on 25 March 2022, regarding an incident with the neighbour’s visitors on 21 March 2022. The resident reported that the landlord had said “what so because they have complained about you, you are now complaining about them? This is ridiculous.”
12. A referral to mediation was made for the resident on 4 April 2022. The resident attended the first meeting but declined any further sessions. On 27 April 2022, the mediation company closed the case.
13. Notes from the landlord’s file on 4 April 2022, advise that it had discussed housing options with the resident. She declined a direct let offer of alternative accommodation and the mutual exchange option to move. It was also noted the landlord cleared the garden for the resident free of charge. This was to avoid any further allegations being made by the neighbour about her burning household waste.
14. On 27 April 2022, the landlord phoned the resident according to the Councillors complaint statement. It advised that it had not received the videos that the resident had sent in as they were deleted automatically from the landlord’s email account ‘in box’ after a week. This was also confirmed in an undated witness statement of the resident’s friend who heard the conversation. The resident also reported that the landlord said “I’m sick of you sending me videos – it’s pathetic.” Another undated witness statement confirms that this was heard being said.
15. The mediation company contacted the landlord on the same day to confirm that the resident had attended her first session and had found it helpful. However, she had declined any further sessions as she felt that it was not an appropriate intervention to resolve the issue.
16. The community mental health team contacted the landlord on 28 April 2022, requesting information on how they could support the resident, as the continuous conflict with the neighbour was having a detrimental impact on her mental health. No details of a direct response were provided by the landlord.
17. The Councillor’s complaint statement says that on 19 May 2022, the landlord phoned the resident to ask why she had not invited her neighbour to the jubilee party. She advised that she had been told not to have contact with them. The resident reported that the landlord then told her that “having a barbeque was illegal” and that the landlord was rude and aggressive.
18. The resident spoke to the landlord on 21 June 2022, according to the landlord’s records. She advised that she would be willing to consider mediation again but did not think it would resolve the issue. The landlord advised the resident that there were counter allegations being made for each report of ASB received.  The landlord’s notes also state that it would write to both parties again, advising them that it would not be dealing with the matter and felt that there was nothing more that it could do as a landlord.
19. On 4 July 2022, the Councillor submitted a formal complaint to the landlord on behalf of the resident. The complaint listed numerous incidents involving the resident and her neighbour which had been ongoing since April 2021. The complaints raised were:

a.     the reports of ASB were not being taken seriously or dealt with

b.     concerns regarding the landlord’s conduct throughout the complaint, including being rude and refusing to look at the resident’s evidence.

c.      complaints regarding the police.

20. A stage one response was provided by the landlord on 15 July 2022. It advised that:

a.     it could not comment on the complaints about the police

b.     diary sheets were sent to the resident on 25 January 2022, but they had not been returned

c.      a tenancy breach letter was sent to the resident on 16 March 2022, as she had approached her neighbours again

d.     a house move was offered in an attempt to resolve the issue but this was declined

e.     it had viewed all CCTV footage with the police and was now stored

f.        as counter allegations had been made, it was difficult to build a case to enable stronger action to be taken against any one party

g.     the allegations were considered neighbourhood disputes with conflicting allegations and so only limited action could be taken

h.     further information was requested with regards to the complaint about the landlord’s staff member.

21. On 13 August 2022, the Councillor contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident, requesting that the stage one decision be escalated for the following reasons:

a.     no apology had been received regarding the staff complaint

b.     no apology had been received for giving the resident a breach of tenancy letter

c.      there were differing accounts from the landlord, resident, and witnesses (witness statements were attached).

d.     diary sheets had been submitted.

e.     not all reported incidents had been logged

f.        no action had been taken against her neighbours.

22. A stage two response dated 2 September 2022, was sent to the resident. It confirmed that:

a.     a full internal investigation would be completed regarding the landlord’s staff member and dealt with internally

b.     a full investigation of the ASB case and evidence would be carried out

c.      a full review of the landlord’s ASB policy would be completed

d.     feedback would be provided to the resident regarding the ASB case and policy findings.

23. On 15 October 2022, the resident wrote to this service stating that there was conflicting information with regards to the landlord stating that she had refused mediation and another document stating that she had agreed to it.
24. On 23 November 2022, the Councillor wrote to the landlord requesting that a further stage one complaint be raised as the resident was not happy. The landlord advised that “there is nothing we can do” and were not taking any further action, despite the resident sending in further ASB reports. The landlord responded on the same day stating that it would not log a new complaint about a matter that had already been exhausted by its complaints procedure, particularly one that was subject to an investigation by the Ombudsman. It advised that if the resident was still experiencing ASB she could continue to record the incidents and send them in to the landlord.
25. During June 2023, this Service corresponded with the resident. She confirmed that:

a.     she now has a new housing officer

b.     she does not want to move,

c.      she just wants to be “left alone and not harassed by her neighbour”.

d.     she had not had any update on the investigation of her ASB case, nor the ASB policy review from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

26. Following the resident’s allegations of harassment by her neighbour on 11 January 2022, the landlord and the police carried out joint home visits to the resident on 24 and 26 January 2022. This was appropriate and complies with the landlord’s ASB policy where it states that it will focus on understanding all points of views, and will do all it can in preventing, addressing, and resolving ASB complaints. It was also adhering to the landlord’s ASB and safeguarding policy, relating to multi agency working.
27. There is no evidence provided to confirm that a risk assessment had been carried out with the resident, in line with the landlord’s ASB policy. Knowing that the resident had multiple health problems, this should have been completed at the first stage of the reports being submitted. This would have assured the resident received the necessary support and that relevant actions were put in place by the landlord, including any referrals. This was not appropriate. The landlord should have been reviewing the risk assessments throughout the reporting timeline, especially as the ASB had been ongoing over a long period of time.
28. Although the landlord’s ASB policy does not set out that action plans should be provided, these are an excellent tool and seen as good practice. The Chartered Institute of Housing’s (CIH) guidance on how to manage ASB cases effectively, encourages the landlord to work with the complainant to agree a strategy for dealing with the case and a realistic action plan, setting clear time scales, and agreed communication methods. Such a plan could have assisted the landlord in arranging multi agency meetings and timelines for referrals. It would have also provided reassurance that the landlord was taking the matter seriously. Without an action plan the landlord missed an opportunity to build trust with the resident and provide confidence that it was taking her issues seriously.
29. The resident and her neighbour were advised by the landlord on a number of occasions not to contact each other or retaliate. Counter allegations of harassment and abuse continued to be reported by the neighbour. ABC’s can provide residents with clear instructions as to how they can modify behaviours to be more in line with their tenancy agreement. These can be particularly useful in counter allegations. No evidence was seen that the landlord chose to explore an ABC with either party, in accordance with its ASB policy. This was not appropriate. The landlord stated that there was limited action it could take due to the counter allegations, but an ABC was an option. This would have been resolution focused and evidenced a victim centred approach.
30. In March 2022, the landlord served breach of tenancy letters on the resident for harassing the neighbours visitor and “bad mouthing” her neighbour. This was appropriate and in line with the terms and conditions of the resident’s tenancy agreement and the landlord’s ASB policy. However, it is not disputed that the resident was able to provide evidence that she did not harass the neighbour’s visitor on 4 March 2022 as alleged. This service has seen the evidence, and it is clear that the resident was not harassing the neighbours visitors.  According to the resident the CCTV was sent to the landlord and the police to review. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord revisited its decision to have issued a tenancy breach letter on this basis and made no apology for this.
31. The resident reports that she attempted to show the landlord her CCTV and diary sheets/logs on 24 January 2022 during a home visit, which it refutes.  The landlord states in its stage one decision that it has not received completed copies. It is evidenced that diary sheets were sent to the resident in January 2022, but this Service has not seen copies of any completed forms. Without the completed logs/diary sheets, the landlord could not have reasonably assessed the detail/frequency of events, determine which party’s version of events was correct and hindered its ability to fully investigate the extent of the ASB and the most appropriate action to take.
32. The resident advised in her stage one complaint that the landlord had refused to watch the CCTV recording and was not interested. In the response the landlord assured that they had been watched and stored. There is evidence to support this on the landlord’s notes where it describes the events recorded indicating that they had been watched.
33. It is accepted that the landlord offered several interventions in trying to assist the resident, which were appropriate and in line with its ASB policy. It recommended mediation on three occasions and offered to move the resident to alternative accommodation via a direct let and a mutual exchange.
34. The landlord has evidenced that it worked with the police. It has also spoken to other support workers involved with both parties. This was appropriate. However, the landlord has not evidenced a response to the mental health worker’s email on 28 April 2022, when they asked what support it could give to help the resident. The resident was clearly asking for support throughout the complaint and assistance from a third party would have been of benefit.
35. The landlord could also have signposted the resident for an ASB case review via the local authority. This would have enabled professionals to review how the agencies have worked together, their responses and recommended ways to resolve the problem. This would have been in line with its safeguarding policy and the ASB, crime and policing act 2014. The landlord missed an opportunity to have its investigations and working methods reviewed, which is particularly important when counter allegations are ongoing for such a long period of time if a resolution is to be found.
36. This service spoke to the resident during the week of 12 June 2023. She confirmed that she had not received an update with regards to the complaint about the staff member, the investigation of her ASB case, nor any amendments made to the ASB policy which was to be reviewed. These were all follow on actions forming part of the landlord’s final response. This delay caused the resident additional stress, uncertainty, and an inability to see a way forward. This would have further impacted the relationship and lack of trust between the resident and the landlord.
37. Overall, the landlord offered a number of interventions in order to resolve the neighbour disputes such as mediation, a direct let and mutual exchange. However, the resident did not want to move. It did not complete risk assessments, or consider using ABC’s, a safeguarding referral, or a case review in line with its own ASB and safeguarding policies. It did not update the resident with regards to its own review of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB or its ASB policy as part of its stage two response. This amounts to maladministration.

Complaint handling

38. The resident’s complaint was submitted by the Councillor on 4 July 2022. The stage one decision was issued on 15 July 2022. This was escalated on 13 August 2022, with a stage two decision issued on 2 September 2022. This was all within the timeline of the landlord’s complaints policy.
39. The complaint re-iterated the resident’s concerns regarding the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB. In the stage one decision letter, the landlord asked for further details regarding this part of the complaint. This was not appropriate as the information had already been provided in the complaint letter. Had the landlord read this through and spoken to the resident, either in the acknowledgement stage or during the 10 days given to investigate the complaint, this could have been identified. This would have enabled this part of the complaint to be addressed fully in the stage one decision. The landlord missed this opportunity of putting things right at the earliest opportunity.
40. In the stage two decision letter, the landlord advised that it would complete an internal investigation with regards to the complaint about a staff member. The stage two decision was issued 21 working days after the complaint was received. This should have been sufficient time for the landlord to start its investigation with regards to the staff member. In line with its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC) it could also have requested an extension of time in order to complete its investigation within a reasonable timescale.
41. This delay caused the resident undue distress and inconvenience, as the staff member would have been made aware of the complaint made about her whilst she was still her main point of contact There is no information provided to suggest that the resident was offered an alternative contact whilst the investigation was taking place. This would have made it difficult for the resident to report any further ASB incidents and would have had a negative impact on the relationship with the landlord.
42. The same can be said about the ASB component of the complaint. The enquiries should have been initiated upon receipt of the complaint and an extension requested if necessary. Instead at the stage two decision the landlord advised the resident that it would investigate further but gave no timeline.
43. The CHC sets out that the stage two decision is to be responded to within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy only allows for 15 working days for a stage two response. Had the policy mirrored the Ombudsman’s guidance, the landlord may have been in a position to respond fully to the complaint as preferred, rather than state it would investigate outside of the complaint handling timeframe.
44. This left the resident in an intermediate state with no plan of action for a resolution and no timelines for when the investigation or reviews would be completed. The landlord did not advise what information would be shared with the resident or how. When this service spoke to the resident during the week of 12 June 2023, she confirmed that she had not received an update with regards to the complaint about the staff member, the investigation of her ASB case, nor any amendments made to the ASB policy which was to be reviewed. This delay caused the resident additional stress, uncertainty, and an inability to see a way forward. This would have created a further breakdown in the relationship and a lack of trust between the resident and the landlord.
45. It is recognised that the timeline for the stage one and stage two decisions were met, and that the landlord offered to review its ASB policy in light of this complaint. However, the delay in initiating any enquiries with regards to the staff and ASB complaint, along with its failures to update the resident on its case review and ASB procedure review as agreed as part of its final response amounts to maladministration.

Record keeping

46. Evidence points to failures in relation to the landlord’s record keeping. The “file notes” the landlord provided this service with, appeared to be more ‘notes’ from staff, than detailed records of what discussions took place. This was not appropriate. An example of this is when the landlord spoke to both parties on 21 March 2022 “at great length”. The only note provided is that “both will agree to mediation as long as not in the same room”. There is no detail of what was spoken about “at great length,” the guidance or instructions given, referrals to be made or any action plan if agreed, to establish the landlord’s good practice and resident centred approach.
47. The landlord visited the resident on 22 January 2022 and 21 March 2022. Again, there are no details recorded of the conversation/investigations that took place during these visits. The landlord was also to send a letter to the resident on 21 June 2022, advising that there was nothing more they could do, and that they would be closing the case. No copy was provided to this Service. Without detailed notes and relevant information, the landlord could not reasonably demonstrate how it had handled the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and why it was unable to take a more formal approach in its actions. This would have benefited the resident and made her feel more supported and re-enforced that the most appropriate action had been taken, albeit limited.
48. The landlord’s complaints policy states that complaints will be logged on their customer relationship management system (CRM) so that they can analyse across the service, what or who is working well and learn from that. Detailed notes would have assisted the landlord and this service in its reviews and investigations regarding the complaint.
49. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM), outlines the failings to create and record information accurately, results in landlord’s not taking appropriate and timely action. It misses opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
50. It also impacted the Ombudsman’s ability to review what discussions, support and guidance had taken place with the resident and when. Conversations with the resident were alluded to in formal complaint responses and on emails, but the records of the conversations were not seen. This Service has had to rely on the resident’s complaint submitted by her councillor as evidence of contact between the parties. This was not appropriate and amounts to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

51. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:

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

b.     complaint handling.

c.      record keeping.

Reasons

52. The landlord did offer several interventions in trying to assist the resident by offering mediation, a transfer and access to a mutual exchange. However, it failed to adhere to its own safeguarding and ASB policy. It did not complete risk assessments, consider a referral for safeguarding, or use an ABC in an attempt to manage the neighbour disputes.
53. Whilst the complaint handling timeline was adhered to, it failed to investigate the complaint about the staff member or the handling of its complaint within a reasonable timeline and update the resident accordingly. Whilst it stated that these would be investigated, there were no details provided to the resident with regards to proposed timescales, what investigations would take place and how they would be reported back. It also failed to provide appropriate resolutions in the interim period.
54. There was poor record keeping by the landlord, no evidence was seen of contemporaneous notes from its customer relationship management system. It failed to be able to demonstrate all its interactions with the resident. The failings 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, contributing to inadequate communication and redress.

Orders

55. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
56. Pay the resident compensation totaling £450 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by the failures highlighted in this report. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears if accrued. The compensation comprises:

a.     £300 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

b.     £150 for the landlord’s complaint handling.

57. The landlord is to provide to the resident feedback on the internal review with regards to its conduct whilst handling this case and the ASB policy and confirmation of its completion.
58. The landlord to review this case and give consideration to reviewing its policies and associated staff training to demonstrate learning from the outcome of this complaint. The review should be completed with reference to the landlord’s own policies and procedures especially its ASB policy and the Ombudsman’s KIM spotlight report. It must:

a.     Consider identifying its failures and how they could have been prevented if the current procedures had been followed. If any gaps in the current policy and procedures are found, then to update them within two months to incorporate the learning.

b.     Provide refresher training for all staff on its ASB policy with instructions and examples of how to complete risk assessments, ABC’s, and action plans (even if not part of their policy) as essential supporting tools in managing their case work and the expectations of the complainants.

c.      Develop organisational key data recording standard requirements that will ensure good record keeping that support the business and demonstrate compliance with national standards.

d.     Report back on wider learning and improvements from complaints in their annual report and more frequently to their residents, staff, and scrutiny panels.

e.     Consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023) and self-assess against the recommendations in that report. It should then provide staff training to promote its good practice.

f.        Consider putting action plans in its ASB procedures to assist staff in giving clear, focused, and timely advice and support. It should provide copies to the residents so that they are made aware of actions to be taken by all parties with appropriate timelines.

g.     Consider putting together additional directions/guidelines to support staff in managing expectations for residents in cases of neighbour disputes when the complaint does not meet the criteria of ASB. This could include providing draft letters for residents, outlining the limitations of enforcement and the benefit of resources available such as mediation and ABC’s and multi agency working.

59. The landlord must advise the Ombudsman of its response to the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.