Sanctuary Housing Association (202216071)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216071

Sanctuary Housing Association

19 January 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour;
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about the scheme manager;
3. Handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a leaseholder of the property since 2004. The property is a ground floor flat in a 3-storey building containing 42 flats. The building is a private retirement scheme for residents aged over 55. The landlord has noted that the resident was receiving cancer treatment at the time of his complaint and was therefore considered to be vulnerable.
The lease sets out the rights and covenants of the purchaser and landlord. The purchaser’s covenants include: to use the property “as a private dwelling in occupation by persons aged at least 55 years”; to do nothing that may “lessen the protection or support given by the property to the development”; and not to do, or omit to do, anything “which may be or become a nuisance, annoyance, disturbance or inconvenience to the owners and occupiers of the development”. The landlord’s covenants include: to allow the purchaser “to hold and enjoy the property … without any interruption”; to enforce the covenants; to maintain the service of a resident warden; to keep and maintain an emergency warden call system or centrally operated control point; and to keep the common parts clean, tidy, and in a good state of repair. The lease clarifies that the warden service operated by the landlord includes “looking out for signs of need and summoning medical or other aid as and when [the landlord] deems it necessary” and “liaising with doctors, social workers, external organisations and friends and relatives of the purchaser as necessary”.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will take swift and effective action to address ASB, working collaboratively with partner agencies to ensure a joined-up approach. It encourages its residents and staff to report incidents of ASB. Where the alleged perpetrator of ASB is a tenant of the landlord, it will address the issues while signposting as appropriate and supporting the customer to maintain their tenancy (or lease). Where there is behaviour that causes nuisance or annoyance, it will use “all the tools available in a prompt and proportionate manner”, based on the circumstances of the case. The ASB procedure states that such tools include mediation, signposting to support services, verbal and written warnings, Acceptable Behaviour Contracts, and enforcement action such as civil injunctions and possession proceedings. The procedure further notes that information will only be disclosed in accordance with the landlord’s data protection obligations, and that initial actions to deal with ASB include the completion of a vulnerability assessment matrix.
In addition to the above, the landlord’s homeowner’s handbook states that ASB can include disturbance and noise caused by dogs, abusive behaviour, and breaking shared security. It confirms that if problems persist after speaking to the alleged perpetrator in a reasonable way, residents should contact the landlord for advice. It notes that residents reporting ASB may need to keep a diary of events including dates, times, details of the nuisance, and how it is affecting them. The handbook states that physical attacks, threats of attack, and other criminal acts should be reported to the police. It also clarifies that ASB may amount to a breach of lease.
The landlord’s complaints policy adopts the definition of ‘complaint’ used by this Service’s complaint handling code, namely: “An expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.” The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1 (‘front line resolution’), it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. The stage 1 response will state whether the complaint is upheld and detail any action to be taken to resolve the situation. At stage 2 (‘investigation’), it will respond within 20 working days. The landlord does not treat complaints about the behaviour of tenants and their households as complaints, although it will investigate complaints about its handling of such issues.
The landlord’s complaints procedure states that complaint acknowledgements will detail the scope of the complaint, who will handle it, the timescale for the response, and actions that can be taken to resolve the issue. Where it is not possible for the landlord to respond to complainants within its target timeframes, it will inform the complainant of this and provide a revised response date. The procedure confirms that if a complainant formally requests escalation of their complaint, this will not be declined.
The landlord has produced specific guidance in relation to complaints about its staff. This states that, should an investigation find that there are areas which should be addressed with a member of staff about whom a complaint had been made, details should not be provided to the complainant. Instead, the response should focus on assuring the customer that action has been taken and how it is expected that this action will prevent poor service delivery in the future.
The landlord’s compensation guidance sets out the circumstances in which the landlord will consider offering financial compensation. These include: where there has been a lack of (or unreasonable delay to) provision of services; where it has failed to follow policies and procedures; where it has provided a delayed or poor response to a complaint; and where a complainant has experienced inconvenience or invested significant time and trouble in resolving an issue as a result of its action or inaction. The landlord will pay up to £400 for the time, trouble and inconvenience of a service failure, according to the level of effort and impact experienced by a complainant (with awards of between £151 and £400 for high effort and high impact). It will also pay up to £150 for poor complaint handling. Alternatively, ‘gestures of goodwill’ may be offered to any customer at the discretion of the officer handling the complaint. No tariff or guidance is provided in relation to the level of such payments.

Summary of events

In 2021, a new scheme manager took up post at the retirement scheme in which the resident’s property is located (referred to in this report as ‘Scheme A’). Their role required them to reside in a cottage located within the grounds of Scheme A. According to a list of key accountabilities provided by the landlord, the scheme manager’s duties involved undertaking risk assessments, resolving residents’ problems and complaints, ensuring residents were kept informed, and ensuring Scheme A was maintained and kept clean and secure, among other things. During working hours, the scheme manager occupied an office on the ground floor of Scheme A.
In March 2022 a new leaseholder moved into the flat opposite the resident’s (‘Property B’) on the ground floor of Scheme A. On 25 March 2022 the resident informed the landlord that there had been “a commotion” outside his property the previous weekend. Another resident’s visitors had found his new neighbour on the floor and had asked him for assistance. His neighbour was coughing and said she was having an asthma attack. The resident contacted an emergency response line available to residents of Scheme A, which declined to contact the scheme manager because they were off duty but instead called an ambulance. The ambulance was later cancelled.
The resident then went to the scheme manager’s cottage and asked for the phone number of his neighbour’s father, who co-owned Property B but did not live there. The scheme manager phoned the neighbour’s father and left a message. The neighbour remained in a distressed state, and throughout the evening she repeatedly went in and out of Property B, asked to use the resident’s WiFi, sat in the reception area of Scheme A, and left her door ajar. Her dog was barking and she told the resident it could be vicious. The resident told the landlord on 25 March 2022 that he believed his neighbour had mental health issues and that he was concerned about her welfare. He also said there was a smell of cigarette smoke in the communal corridor.
The resident reported further incidents involving his neighbour to the landlord on at least 7 occasions between 30 March 2022 and 3 July 2022. These related to a smell of smoke, shouting, the neighbour’s dog barking and fouling while tied up on the patio, external doors being left open following a recent burglary, the neighbour leaving her keys in the door, the neighbour banging on other residents’ doors, and unsightly black plastic sheeting being taped to the neighbour’s windows and door. The resident raised his concerns that Scheme A – a private owner-occupier scheme for residents capable of independent living – was not suitable accommodation for his neighbour’s needs. He also asked if his neighbour was interviewed to ensure she was suitable for Scheme A, according to what he understood to be the landlord’s usual practice. Each time the landlord acknowledged the correspondence and confirmed that the resident’s housing officer would respond within 10 working days. However, this Service has seen no evidence that the housing officer responded.
On 16 May 2022 the resident informed the landlord that his housing officer had been due to visit Scheme A but had not attended, despite having arranged appointments with several residents. The resident was concerned as 1 of the 2 washing machines used by Scheme A residents had been broken for over 3 weeks. On 26 June 2022 the resident noted his continued concerns about his neighbour’s dog, which had briefly been removed from Scheme A but returned despite the landlord’s assurances that it would not be allowed to return.
On 4 July 2022 the landlord informed the resident that the housing officer had written to his neighbour on 28 June 2022, informing her that her dog could not remain on site and must be returned to kennels until alternative arrangements could be made. It also said it had referred to the security concerns raised. It said it would contact the neighbour again following further reports and would address a car parking issue with its scheme manager.
On 26 July 2022 the resident received an email from his housing officer which was recalled, but he was able to read it before it was recalled. The email referred to “more take telling”, which the resident assumed was a misspelling of “tale telling”. He believed the housing officer was accusing him of tale telling in relation to his neighbour’s behaviour. He informed other staff of this, stating that he was “extremely annoyed” by the apparent accusation and describing the ongoing ASB that he was experiencing. He referred to a further incidence of his neighbour shouting in the lobby the previous day, and ongoing dog related issues. On 29 July 2022 the housing officer’s line manager apologised to the resident for the wording of the email sent in error on 26 July 2022 and for any offence caused. They said they would address the matter with the housing officer on their return from annual leave.
The resident reported further issues with his neighbour’s behaviour to the landlord on 3 August 2022. He was particularly upset that his visiting family had witnessed some of the behaviour. On 4 August 2022 the resident contacted the landlord again, stating “I feel it is time to make an official complaint.” He described further incidents and the impact on him: he found living opposite his neighbour stressful and was losing sleep. He also noted that his neighbour’s dog had injured 2 residents and attacked others. He asked for details of how he could make “an official complaint” against the landlord.
The landlord did not immediately respond, and on 6 August 2022 the resident provided photos and details of further incidents. On 7 August 2022 he emailed the landlord’s chief executive to ask for help. The landlord discussed the resident’s email to its chief executive internally on 7 and 9 August 2022. On 10 August 2022 it informed the resident that, following receipt of his emails, it would open a complaint in relation to its handling of his ASB reports and would provide a response “as soon as [it] was able”. It advised the resident to report any further issues to its homeownership team in the meantime. The landlord subsequently opened a complaint on 17 August 2022, and its stage 1 responder emailed the resident to inform him that it had done so. The stage 1 responder requested a phone call to discuss the issues.
On 22 August 2022 the resident told the landlord that he was willing to discuss the issues, but he was unsure what complaint it was dealing with, as he had not yet made one. He clarified that he had requested details of how to make a complaint, and expected the landlord to send him a form or other information.
On 23 August 2022 the resident reported that he had seen the scheme manager asleep in their office at 10am and again 10 minutes later. The landlord confirmed receipt of this report and told the resident his housing officer would respond within 10 working days, but they did not.
On 26 August 2022 the landlord explained to the resident that it had logged a complaint on its system and was investigating this at stage 1 of its complaints process, as it had previously advised on 17 August 2022. It noted that the neighbour’s dog had now been removed from Scheme A, so this was no longer an issue. It also noted that it had apologised to the resident on 29 July 2022 for the email sent to him in error on 26 July 2022. It asked him what else it could do to put things right.
The resident submitted an online formal complaint form to the landlord on 30 August 2022. This stated that:
1. He wished to complain about the service provided by the landlord at Scheme A.
2. On 20 March 2022 the landlord allowed his neighbour and her dog to move into the flat opposite his. The neighbour had apparently not been interviewed by the landlord before she was permitted to live at Scheme A, as had always been the case.
3. The night the neighbour moved in, she caused a disturbance. Since then her disturbing behaviour had continued. Her dog was aggressive, had injured 2 residents, and made residents afraid to pass by when it was tied up on the patio.
4. His neighbour had blacked out her windows using bin liners and newspaper. She also allowed her dog to foul and dig up the grounds of Scheme A, making the area unsightly.
5. She continued to leave her patio door open when she went out or sat in the lobby. This created a security problem. She continually lost her keys, locked herself out of the building, and got lost trying to find her flat.
6. When his neighbour went into hospital and her dog was put into kennels, he was assured by his housing officer that the dog would not return. Another resident had an email from the housing officer stating this. However, the dog did later return.
7. He had received an email from his housing officer accusing him of “tale telling”, which he found “very insulting”. He also found the housing officer’s attitude disappointing, as other staff had asked him to keep diary entries of any disturbances.
8. His neighbour recently went away again and residents were told she would not return, but she came back almost immediately. The dog had not yet returned but there was no guarantee that it would not.
9. Since her return, his neighbour had spent a lot of time sitting and sleeping in the communal lobby, surrounded by bags and drinks, or sitting on the floor outside the front door smoking. She often shouted and swore on her phone while in the lobby or outside the front door. He frequently heard her shouting and arguing with her father, who called regularly.
10. The whole communal corridor now often smelt of smoke. He had to smell it every time he opened his door.
11. At 11.30pm on 7 July 2022, the building’s fire alarm system was activated when his neighbour left items on her hob. This caused confusion to residents who had to leave their flats and stand outside in darkness.
12. He had been particularly upset on 3 August 2022 when he had his family visiting and his neighbour caused “a frightening and horrific scene”. This began at 5am and culminated in “hysterical and abusive” behaviour at around 3.45pm when he reported the incident to the emergency response service.
13. The situation had caused him “a great deal of stress” and he had had enough. People moved into accommodation like Scheme A for a stress-free lifestyle. He felt the landlord had let residents down by letting “the wrong type of people” live there, and also by giving them a scheme manager who did nothing but sit in the office looking at his phone, sleep, and spend time in his cottage.
14. Residents received no information and were not told when the scheme manager would be on holiday or unavailable. The scheme manager could also be difficult for residents to understand.
15. Residents previously received regular visits from the area manager, but this no longer happened. The previous scheme manager told residents she was leaving because of a lack of help and support from the landlord.
16. He had no confidence the landlord would take any action to deal with the ASB he was experiencing. He felt “very let down”. The landlord’s attitude and lack of action were the reason for his complaint.
The landlord forwarded the resident’s complaint form internally on 31 August 2022, as it appeared to have been sent to the wrong department initially. It then spoke to the resident on the phone the same day and identified 4 aspects to his complaint: dog barking, the email from the housing officer, ASB from his neighbour, and concern about the neighbour meeting the requirements of the lease. On 18 September 2022 the resident contacted the landlord, stating that since filling in a complaint form on 30 August 2022, he believed he should have received an update every 3-5 days and a response within 10 working days. Since he had received no update, he asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2, including the following additional points:
1. He returned home from holiday on 16 August 2022 to find his neighbour’s patio door wide open. His neighbour was out and did not return until over an hour later. Another resident told him the door had been open all morning, creating a security risk.
2. He was also aware that during the week he was away, another resident had been burgled and an unknown male had been approaching female residents.
3. When a female resident raised concerns with the scheme manager, they told her to call the police herself. He felt the scheme manager should have called the police, and also warned residents of the security issues. There had also been no response from the housing officer, who was on sick leave.
4. He believed the smell of cigarette smoke in the corridor, and sometimes in the lobby, was damaging his physical and mental health. He was receiving treatment for cancer.
5. The scheme manager did not seem interested in interacting with residents, or in “doing much else”. A visitor had again seen them sleeping in their office that week.
6. The washing machine had now been broken for several weeks, and he questioned why it had not yet been repaired.
On 20 September 2022 the landlord replied to the resident and clarified that his complaint was still at stage 1 of its complaints process. It referred to its phone conversation with the resident on 31 August 2022 and summarised action taken in relation to each of the 4 aspects of his complaint. This included:
1. The neighbour’s dog had been removed from Scheme A by its owners.
2. It had apologised for the email sent to the resident in error. It believed this part of his complaint was resolved.
3. It had addressed noise, smoking and security issues with the neighbour, including during 2 in-person meetings. It would continue to address any reported incidents as they arose in accordance with its ASB procedure.
4. The scheme manager would ask the neighbour to return to her flat if she was sleeping in the lobby. Like any other resident, she was able to wait for visitors or a taxi in the lobby if she wished.
5. It had not been able to find anything in the information provided to it at the point of purchase (of Property B) to suggest that the neighbour was not capable of independent living. It had since addressed this issue with the neighbour and it understood she had been looking for alternative accommodation.
The landlord asked the resident to let it know if he remained unhappy with the actions it had taken at stage 1, and if so, what outcome he sought. It noted that its housing officer had been off sick for “the last few weeks” and advised the resident to use its team mailbox rather than emailing individual officers. It advised that it could only deal with the issues raised under the open complaint, so any new concerns would need to be dealt with under a new complaint.
The resident replied to the landlord on 21 September 2022, stating that he was “not surprised but somewhat disappointed” by its response. He confirmed that he was not happy with the response and that he felt further action was necessary. He also provided details of an incident involving his neighbour on 20 September 2022, where the neighbour alleged that the scheme manager had threatened her with violence and the police were called. The resident sent a further email to the landlord’s chief executive on 21 September 2022.
On 22 September 2022 the resident again queried the landlord’s logging of his complaint, highlighting that he had asked how to make a complaint on 4 August 2022 and did not go on to make his complaint until 30 August 2022. In response to the landlord’s email of 20 September 2022, he replied that:
1. The neighbour’s dog had caused considerable disturbance and fear to residents. It was previously taken away and returned, despite the landlord’s assurances that it would not. Residents had no guarantee that it would not return again.
2. As the housing officer had not personally apologised for the email they sent to him on 26 July 2022, he did not consider this issue to be resolved.
3. He could still hear noise from his neighbour while in his flat. She would sit in the lobby or outside the front door of Scheme A, shouting loudly and often using obscenities. She also argued with her father when he visited. This was very disturbing.
4. The corridor stank of cigarette smoke. He had never smoked and found the smell unpleasant as well as unhealthy. He felt he had a right to object, as residents “should not be subject to these poisonous fumes”. The smell was particularly strong that day as the fire door had been shut to stop the smoke entering the lobby.
5. The security issues previously described continued. He attached a photo taken on 21 August 2022 which showed a disregard for security and the appearance of his neighbour’s flat.
6. Recent events showed that his neighbour was ignoring requests not to sleep or spend a lot of time in the lobby.
7. He believed that the reason the landlord had no information to say that his neighbour was incapable of independent living was because her father, rather than the neighbour herself, was interviewed. Other residents had often seen his neighbour in the local area before she moved in, and he was aware she had been evicted from a nearby flat. He believed her father was untruthful during the interview in order to get her into Scheme A.
8. Though his neighbour may be looking for alternative accommodation, her flat would never sell in its current condition.
9. The landlord had made no reference to the issues with the scheme manager. He repeated his concerns.
10. It had also not referred to the lack of visits by the area manager. He felt they should have attended to investigate a recent incident when his neighbour used abusive and racist language towards the scheme manager.
11. He would like to press on with his formal complaint. He had lived at Scheme A for many years and “things have never been as bad”.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord’s chief executive on 23 September 2022, and reported continued incidents involving his neighbour on 25 and 27 September 2022. The landlord acknowledged receipt of his emails and on 28 September 2022 it put support in place to assist the scheme manager in dealing with ASB at Scheme A. An officer allocated to support the scheme manager contacted the resident to introduce themselves on 3 October 2022. They subsequently spoke to him on 10 October 2022 and provided weekly updates thereafter. He told them he was happy with this response.
On 7 October 2022 the landlord’s stage 1 responder sent the resident an email in relation to his complaint. This stated that:
1. They thanked the resident for taking the time to speak to them on 27 September 2022 and for his patience while they investigated the issues raised.
2. The resident’s complaint was allocated to the homeownership manager for Scheme A, who spoke to him on 31 August 2022. They identified 4 aspects of the complaint and responded to the resident regarding each aspect on 20 September 2022.
3. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with this response, but confirmed that the neighbour’s dog had been removed from the scheme. He was also satisfied the issue regarding the email from his housing officer was resolved as it was now in the past. Therefore the first 2 aspects of the complaint were resolved, and these aspects were upheld.
4. The landlord’s complaints process related to the way it provided or delivered services. Therefore, in respect of aspects 3 and 4 of the complaint, the complaints process would only address how the landlord was addressing the issues, and not the root issue. It provided a link to the complaints page on its website.
5. However, it agreed it was important that it resolved the resident’s complaint and explained what it was doing in relation to the issues raised.
6. Its homeownership officer was now managing the ASB issues and would be working with the resident’s neighbour to resolve these. While it may not be able to discuss all its actions with the resident, it would keep him updated on progress. This aspect of the complaint was partially upheld.
7. The resident had asked how his neighbour was given approval to live at Scheme A. Though it could not discuss personal information with him, it could not refuse a buyer unless they did not meet the criteria set out in the lease. At Scheme A, the requirement was for leaseholders to be 55 of over. It also required buyers to meet with the scheme manager so it was aware of their individual needs. This aspect of the complaint was not upheld.
8. Regarding ASB, outcomes were often about managing behaviour and working with customers to change their behaviour. The resident had given a number of examples of how his neighbour’s behaviour was affecting him, and it understood how these issues could impact on other residents. It understood he had spoken to its homeownership officer who was working with his neighbour, and hoped she was able to reassure him that it was dealing with the concerns raised. The officer would contact him with updates every few weeks, and it asked him to keep a record of any further issues.
9. It was sorry to hear about the resident’s concerns regarding management of the scheme. His account was different to what it understood to be the case. Its housing officer and area manager had visited Scheme A a number of times over the past few months. It was working with the scheme manager to address the concerns raised – such as a lack of newsletters, information, repair/maintenance updates, visibility and availability – and would be supporting them to provide these services.
10. It hoped it had reassured the resident that it had taken his comments and feedback on board, and that it was addressing the concerns raised. It asked him to let it know if he wished to escalate his complaint.
The resident replied on 10 October 2022 that he remained upset that the landlord had allowed his neighbour to move into Scheme A without being interviewed, and about the ensuing 6 months of disturbance he had experienced (particularly when his family visited). He also said he was unhappy about a lack of contact from the landlord’s area manager and an apparent lack of interest from its scheme manager. He noted that the washing machine had now been out of order for 6 weeks, and the scheme manager spent most of the day looking at his phone, in his cottage, or asleep.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 October 2022. This stated that:
1. It was sorry that the resident was not reassured by its response that issues at Scheme A were being dealt with. It understood its homeownership officer had spoken with him and had undertaken to provide regular updates. This officer was now managing the issues involving the resident’s neighbour.
2. It appreciated the resident had experienced disruption and disturbance over the last 6 months, and it was sorry for this. In its letter it had explained that some aspects of the complaint were upheld, and it offered £100 as a gesture of goodwill for the inconvenience caused during this time.
3. It asked the resident to inform its homeownership officer informed of any further incidents.
4. Issues regarding the scheme manager and ongoing management of the scheme were being addressed by its homeownership manager. This would include maintenance issues such as the washing machine. The homeownership manager and other officers would be supporting the scheme manager. It had shared the resident’s recent examples with the homeownership manager.
5. Aspects of actions it may take in relation to the ASB and scheme manager may be confidential, but this did not mean it was not taking the resident’s complaint and concerns seriously. It was actively seeking to resolve the issues.
6. It was sorry the resident had cause to complain. It hoped he would see an improvement going forward, that its response showed his feedback had been fully considered, and that he was satisfied with this final response.
7. If the resident was dissatisfied with the response, it asked him to let it know why and what outcome he sought within 10 days. His complaint would then be reviewed at stage 2 of its complaints process. He also had the option of referring his case to this Service for further review.
8. If it did not hear from him within 10 working days, it would consider the matter resolved and close the complaint.
The resident was away from his property at the time of receiving the stage 1 response, and emailed the landlord on his return on 16 October 2022. He asked what stage his complaint was now at, as “I’m afraid I am not sure what is happening.” He said that, while he appreciated the landlord had made some effort to resolve the issues, he felt this Service should be aware of its standard of management. He summarised his continued concerns, which related to ASB, security, interviewing of new residents, the dog issue, his quality of life, recurrent blocking of the drain, the washing machine, a lighting repair which took 6 months, parking problems, infrequent visits by the area manager, and issues with the scheme manager. He said “standards have never been as low”.
The resident reported further issues and ASB incidents to the landlord on 16 and 17 October 2022. On 26 October 2022, after seeking advice from this Service, he requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. On 27 October 2022 the landlord asked what outcome he was seeking, and the resident replied that he would like:
1. His neighbour to move out.
2. The landlord to give assurance that new residents would be vetted and interviewed to ensure they were suitable to live at Scheme A.
3. An area manager “who we actually see from time to time and turns up when [they are] supposed to”.
4. A proactive scheme manager who kept residents informed, produced notices and newsletters, interacted with residents and could be understood.
5. Control of parking issues such as untaxed vehicles, use of the car park by non-residents, and inconsiderate/selfish parking.
6. Relevant people/bodies to be made aware of residents’ frustrations regarding the way they had been dealt with by the landlord.
He also noted that he did not complain with the aim of obtaining compensation – though if he had, the landlord’s offer of £100 “would nowhere near cover the disruption I have had to put up with for many months”. The landlord responded the same day that:
1. The outcome of the neighbour moving out could not be achieved through its complaints process. It could not discuss the neighbour’s circumstances, but reiterated that it was managing the issues. It repeated its request for the resident to report any further incidents of ASB.
2. Prospective buyers of properties at Scheme A had to evidence their eligibility under the terms of the lease. This was merely a minimum age requirement. There may be times when a new or existing leaseholder displayed behaviour that was antisocial or to the detriment of other residents; in these cases it would deal with the issues under its ASB procedure.
3. Its management of the ASB was not acceptable prior to the resident’s complaint. It had apologised for this and appointed an officer to manage the situation going forward.
4. It had apologised for previous occasions where the homeownership officer did not visit the scheme as agreed. The resident’s former housing officer no longer worked for the landlord and their role was currently vacant. The resident’s first point of contact was the scheme manager. If he needed additional support or the scheme manager was not available, he should contact the homeownership team.
5. The resident’s concerns about the scheme manager also could not be resolved through its complaints process. The resident had raised concerns and these would be addressed with the scheme manager. As it had previously explained, it was putting support in place to resolve the issues with the scheme manager.
6. The repair/maintenance and parking issues were linked to the point above. The scheme manager should deal with these issues and put up appropriate notices to ensure clear communication with residents.
7. Its offer of £100 was not intended to cause dissatisfaction, but was a gesture of goodwill for the disruption and inconvenience the resident had experienced. It appreciated he did not request any financial settlement. Its offer remained open should he choose to accept it.
8. It asked the resident to let it know if he would still like his complaint to be escalated.
The landlord discussed the resident’s escalation request internally on 27 October 2022, noting that his “expectations do not fall within the complaints process in my opinion”. However it concluded that “as [the resident has] requested escalation, we can’t really refuse”. It escalated the complaint on 28 October 2022 and informed the resident that it had done so. It told the resident that its stage 2 response would review how it had dealt with his complaint at stage 1 and may not deliver the outcomes sought.
On 31 October 2022 the landlord again told the resident that it was investigating his complaint at stage 2 and asked him to confirm the outcome he was seeking within 5 working days. The resident responded with copies of emails he had previously sent in answer to this question.
On 1 November 2022 the resident told the landlord that it had been over 9 weeks since one of Scheme A’s washing machines broke down, leaving residents of 42 flats with a single machine to use. The landlord confirmed it would raise this internally. It subsequently provided an update on 16 November 2022, advising that the machine had been condemned and that it was awaiting quotes for replacement.
The resident requested a callback from the landlord on 7 and 10 November 2022. The landlord returned his call on 10 November 2022. The resident then reported further incidents involving his neighbour on 14 November 2022. The landlord’s stage 2 responder visited Scheme A the same week and discussed the case internally on 21 November 2022. On 25 November 2022 the landlord wrote to all residents of Scheme A informing them that their former housing officer was no longer employed by the landlord, and that a different officer would be looking after the scheme with immediate effect. The letter provided updates on various ongoing repair and maintenance issues, and confirmed the landlord’s awareness of issues with the scheme manager service.
The same day (25 November 2022) the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint. This stated that:
1. It had now had the opportunity to review the issues and concerns the resident had raised in relation to ASB at Scheme A.
2. It apologised for its mishandling of the resident’s communication when he contacted its chief executive on 7 August 2022 to raise concerns about ASB. Though his concerns were acknowledged and he was advised a complaint would be recorded, it was disappointed to note that the complaint was not recorded correctly and was therefore not acknowledged within its stipulated timescale. It was sorry this happened.
3. It would also like to apologise for the delay in issuing its stage 1 response and for the inconvenience this caused. It was sorry the resident was unhappy with its stage 1 response and that it was unable to resolve the matter earlier.
4. When the resident completed an online complaint form on 30 August 2022, it sincerely apologised that his report of dissatisfaction with the handling of his complaint and his request to escalate to stage 2 was not actioned.
5. It thanked him for his emails, which had helped it understand his concerns. Its understanding was that the resident would like the ASB to be resolved; the alleged perpetrator to move out of Scheme A; and for new residents to be vetted and interviewed to ensure they are suitable before they are allowed to move in.
6. It clarified that it was unable to resolve any ASB or enforce leasehold action as part of the complaints process. Instead, it was able to investigate how the resident’s ASB reports had been handled and if they were dealt with in accordance with its ASB policy and procedure.
7. To investigate the complaint, it had reviewed all available system notes and discussed the matter with the staff concerned.
8. It summarised events between 25 March 2022 and 28 October 2022, and apologised that:
  1. The housing officer did not respond to the resident’s email of 25 March 2022.
  2. The housing officer did not respond to the resident’s email of 29 June 2022, and he had to contact them again on 3 July 2022.
  3. The housing officer sent the resident an email on 26 July 2022 which contained a comment that he found offensive.
  4. It acknowledged his complaint on 10 August 2022 but did not record it until 17 August 2022.
  5. It did not escalate the complaint when the resident requested this on 18 September 2022.
  6. The resident was wrongly informed on 20 September 2022 that it could only deal with the issues already raised within the resident’s complaint, and that if he had any new concerns, he would need to raise a new complaint.
  7. It missed an opportunity to consider the further issues raised by the resident in its stage 1 response on 11 October 2022.
  8. The scheme manager did not take action in relation to the resident’s initial reports of ASB.
9. Following the stage 1 response, the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports, and also raised concerns regarding maintenance of the washing machine and parking. Unfortunately, as these concerns were not raised prior to the stage 1 response, it was unable to consider them within its stage 2 investigation. This did not stop the resident from submitting a new complaint to have these issues investigated.
10. One of the outcomes sought by the resident was for new residents to be vetted and interviewed. There was no clause in the lease which stated that new leaseholders must be vetted. The only restriction was that leaseholders must be over the age of 55.
11. In relation to staff conduct:
  1. It aimed to provide an excellent standard of customer service, and all staff received accredited training to help it achieve this. On occasions when this did not happen or a customer believed a member of staff had behaved inappropriately, it appreciated being made aware. This enabled it to identify areas where staff may require more training, or where formal action may be required in line with its disciplinary or capability and performance procedures.
  2. Because of data protection rights for staff, it could not disclose details of any action taken under these procedures to a customer. However, it assured the resident that his reports were addressed.
12. In relation to ASB:
  1. It hoped the resident could appreciate that when dealing with ASB, the actions taken often related to the alleged perpetrator’s personal information. This could not be disclosed to the person who made the report. It understood this could lead to frustration as it could appear that no action was being taken.
  2. The causes and effects of ASB were wide ranging and could affect all members of the community. It worked in partnership with other agencies to ensure all available measures were used effectively to tackle ASB. It had advised the resident to contact the police if he had any immediate concerns about his neighbour’s health, safety or behaviour.
  3. While it expected all residents to show respect to each other, it knew this was not always the case. Neighbour disputes could be frustrating and create friction. As a socially responsible landlord it had a duty to consider the proportionality of any legal action, while also considering the effect of ASB on neighbours. Gathering evidence could take a long time, and it would continue to gather as much evidence of ASB as possible to add to the case. It would therefore be grateful if the resident could continue making reports.
  4. According to its ASB procedure, the key factor in deciding whether behaviour was antisocial was the impact of the behaviour on others. It quoted the definition of ASB used by the ASB, Crime & Policing Act 2014, which also required that staff must complete a vulnerability assessment for all new cases of ASB. The vulnerability assessment considered 3 types of vulnerability – personal, situational and incidental.
  5. Under its procedure, following a report of ASB it carried out an initial assessment of the situation which determined whether the reporter needed to be contacted within 1 or 5 working days. It could see that following the resident’s reports, there were many occasions that he was not contacted. It was therefore satisfied that the steps to resolve the issues were not appropriate or proportionate to the concerns raised.
  6. It could also see that the required steps involving the vulnerability matrix and action plans were not completed, and that he was not offered early intervention methods such as mediation.
  7. It appeared the level of service the resident received fell below its expected standard. It was sorry he had experienced this, and assured him it would be feeding back its findings to relevant teams to ensure mechanisms were put in place to prevent this happening in future.
  8. It believed it had not acted appropriately in attempting to resolve the ASB issues reported, and therefore his complaint was upheld.
13. It increased its “goodwill offer” to £900, comprising:
  1. £400 for its significant delays in raising a complaint, delayed acknowledgement, delayed response, and delayed escalation to stage 2;
  2. £50 for the distress caused by the email the resident found offensive on 26 July 2022;
  3. £50 for its miscommunication regarding the complaint status;
  4. £400 for its lack of communication and action following the resident’s reports of ASB (increased from the £100 offered at stage 1).
14. The offer was made in settlement of the complaint and would remain open for 3 months.
15. This was its formal response at the final stage of its complaints process. If the resident had any questions or comments, it asked him to let it know within 10 working days. If he was unhappy with the response he could contact this Service.

Post complaint

On 28 November 2022 the resident contacted the landlord in reply to its stage 2 response. He noted that the landlord had referred to its offer of £900 as a “goodwill gesture” and “settlement of the claim”, but surely it could not be both. In relation to the terms of the lease, he referred to the landlord’s leasehold pack which stated that the “buyer must undergo a needs and risk assessment by the scheme manager and be approved by [the landlord]”. He pointed out that other residents had had to complete a needs and risk assessment with the scheme manager, and questioned why his neighbour did not. He repeated his concerns about the scheme manager and said that his neighbour was currently not at Scheme A, but there was no indication that she would not return. He stated his view that, while he was grateful for the offer of £900, “I am still not sure the issues have yet been dealt with properly.”
The landlord clarified on 29 November 2022 that accepting the £900 did not stop the resident from referring his complaint to this Service. It said it was sorry he remained dissatisfied and advised that it was the role of its housing team, rather than its complaints team, to resolve the ASB issues. The resident accepted the landlord’s offer of £900 on 1 December 2022, and the landlord confirmed on 2 December 2022 that it had processed the payment.
Between 5 December 2022 and 19 January 2023, the resident reported continued ASB by his neighbour on at least 8 occasions. In January 2023 the landlord removed chairs and a table from the lobby area to discourage the resident’s neighbour from sitting in the room for long periods, but the furniture was replaced by another resident. The neighbour was then away from Scheme A for a period of 7 weeks (between January and March 2023).
On 1 and 18 February 2023 the resident reported further issues involving the scheme manager. These related to the scheme manager’s apparent inability to write newsletters, due to their limited grasp of English, and their dishevelled appearance on 17 February 2023. On 10 March 2023 he told the landlord he was dismayed to hear that his neighbour was due to return to Scheme A, and noted that the scheme manager had been on sick leave for 3 weeks.
Following the neighbour’s return on 21 March 2023, the resident reported further ASB incidents/issues to the landlord on at least 18 occasions between 22 March 2023 and 9 June 2023. On 27 April 2023 he reported that the scheme manager was smoking outside the front door, despite agreeing not to smoke at this location after the issue was previously reported on 11 January 2023. On 12 June 2023 the resident told the landlord that the scheme manager was again asleep in their office at 9.10am, and provided photo evidence. On 6 July 2023 the resident’s neighbour ceased to reside at Scheme A.
On 14 July 2023 the landlord put up a notice at Scheme A informing residents that they no longer had the services of a scheme manager. According to the resident, it subsequently confirmed that the scheme manager had been dismissed. An update provided by the resident on 11 November 2023 stated that residents now had a temporary scheme manager who visited for 3 hours a day, but not every day. He said the landlord had told him that the scheme manager role could not be advertised while the former scheme manager continued to occupy the cottage accommodation at Scheme A. The resident informed this Service on 13 December 2023 that the former scheme manager was still occupying the on-site accommodation 5 months after they were dismissed, preventing the full-time role from being advertised by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is important to note that the current investigation relates to the complaint made by the resident to the landlord. It therefore concerns the resident’s individual experiences and the impact of events on him. As this is not a group complaint, the Ombudsman’s investigation will not consider the impact on other residents of Scheme A, although it is appreciated that they too may be vulnerable and may have been impacted by the events discussed.

Reports of ASB

The landlord did not respond appropriately or effectively to the resident’s initial reports of ASB by his neighbour. Of 12 reports he made by email between 25 March 2022 and 7 August 2022, 7 were acknowledged, and only 2 received a more detailed response. The landlord’s procedure of contacting customers to discuss ASB reported within 1-5 working days was therefore not consistently applied. On 7 August 2022 it appeared that the landlord responded more proactively because the resident had contacted its chief executive directly. A ‘learning from complaint’ form completed by the landlord in December 2022 stated that “no officer was monitoring the ASB in [Scheme A] until 28 September 2022”. This meant that, for a 6-month period, the resident was subjected to behaviour that he found upsetting, offensive and frightening, with insufficient intervention and support from the landlord. He was also understandably concerned about his neighbour’s welfare and had no assurance that this was being addressed. Consequently, the landlord failed to act in accordance with its ASB policy and procedure between March and September 2022. In addition, there is no indication that its response would have improved if the resident had not made a formal complaint and/or contacted its chief executive.
Partway through this 6-month period of inaction, the resident received an email from his housing officer that appeared to suggest he was “tale telling” on his neighbour. This email was obviously not intended for him to read. Not only was the language used inappropriate, it was also at odds with the landlord’s policy aim of gathering evidence to deal with reported ASB. In the circumstances, the landlord was correct to issue a prompt apology and to confirm that the issue would be addressed with the officer concerned. This was a proportionate and solution-focused response. The Ombudsman notes that the officer in question ceased to be employed by the landlord 4 months later, and that the resident told the landlord he was happy with its resolution of this matter on 27 September 2022.
Following the allocation of a designated officer to support the scheme manager in dealing with ASB in September 2022, there is evidence that the landlord took a range of appropriate actions to address and investigate the reported behaviour. These included completing vulnerability assessments, speaking to the resident’s neighbour and her father directly, providing weekly updates to the resident, signposting to relevant agencies such as the police, seeking legal advice, exploring enforcement options, and working in partnership with other involved agencies. Due to data protection, not all of the action taken could be disclosed to the resident, and such action also cannot be discussed in this report for the same reasons. However, the documentary evidence provided by the landlord is indicative of a thorough and pragmatic approach. In the Ombudsman’s view, the actions of the officer allocated in September 2022 were commendable and their involvement was transformative in terms of the ASB investigation.
The Ombudsman accepts that the situation was a challenging one for the landlord to resolve. While there are other actions it could have taken – such as conducting structured and more frequent interviews, surveying residents, issuing a series of incremental advice/warning letters, attempting an Acceptable Behaviour Contract, offering mediation, and making the resident aware of the community trigger process – in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord managed the ASB adequately from September 2022 onwards. Its approach was informed by information it held about the vulnerabilities and circumstances of the parties involved and the expert opinions of other professionals. While it was no doubt disappointing for the resident to learn that the landlord would need to rebuild evidence for possible legal action following his neighbour’s 7-week absence from Scheme A, it was reasonable for the landlord to act in accordance with legal advice it had received. It is also acknowledged that some reported behaviours, while frustrating for other affected residents, would not be classed as ASB or any antisocial intent would be difficult to prove (such as repeated ambulance attendances, blocking of drains, and activation of the fire alarm system).
With regard to compensation, the Ombudsman understands that the resident did not seek financial redress and that he found the landlord’s initial offer of payment “distasteful”. In view of the failures identified, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer a payment in recognition of its service failure. However, this should have been presented as compensation rather than as a “goodwill offer”. The £100 offered at stage 1 also did not reflect the extent of the time, trouble and inconvenience experienced by the resident. A finding of reasonable redress has been made in light of the increased stage 2 offer, which consisted of the highest award for effort and impact in respect of the ASB service failure (£400) and an additional £50 for the email sent in error. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this offer took account of the resident’s circumstances, the detriment caused to him, and his vulnerability, and so resolved this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily.

Concerns about scheme manager

According to the resident, when the scheme manager commenced employment with the landlord in May 2021 “it was immediately obvious they were totally unsuitable for the role, taking no interest in the job or the residents”. It is unclear whether the landlord was made aware of this prior to March 2022, and if so, how it responded.
This investigation focuses on the period from March 2022 until the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 25 November 2022. During this time, the resident expressed concerns about the scheme manager’s conduct and abilities on at least 14 occasions. It should also be noted that he expressed concerns on 13 further occasions between 28 November 2022 and 12 June 2023. The concerns he raised related to the scheme manager:
1. Sleeping at their desk;
2. Being in their cottage or otherwise unavailable during work hours;
3. Being difficult to understand;
4. Having an insufficient command of English to write newsletters and produce signs;
5. Failing to arrange social events;
6. Not dealing effectively with incidents of ASB and safeguarding/security concerns, including laughing when concerns were raised;
7. Not dealing effectively with repair, maintenance and parking issues;
8. Smoking outside the front door;
9. Not interviewing his neighbour or sufficiently assessing her suitability to live at Scheme A;
10. Not interacting with residents, enquiring about their welfare following illness, or taking an interest in them.
The Ombudsman has had the opportunity to review photo evidence of some of the reported behaviours (for instance, the scheme manager asleep in their office at different times, and a misspelt lift sign they produced), and agrees that the conduct described was not always in accordance with the terms of the lease or the landlord’s obligations as set out in its homeowner’s handbook. The scheme manager’s actions and inactions evidently had a negative impact on the resident’s experience of living at Scheme A and on the provision of paid-for services, such as communal lighting and laundry facilities. The delays and lack of adequate communication would have caused residents of the scheme understandable anxiety and distress.
In respect of the incident on or around 20 March 2022, which the resident emailed the landlord about on 25 March 2022, the scheme manager would not have been expected to respond while off duty. The landlord’s homeowner’s handbook states that scheme managers of retirement schemes have certain responsibilities, such as helping residents to manage emergencies, “during their normal working hours”. Any deficiency in the landlord’s response on this date is therefore attributable to its contracted emergency response service, and not to the scheme manager, who when approached directly by the resident attempted to contact his neighbour’s father as he asked (despite being off duty). The scheme manager’s actions on this occasion are not considered by the Ombudsman to have been unreasonable.
There is also evidence that the landlord took positive action in response to some of the resident’s reports. For example, on 7 April 2022 it requested that the housing officer liaised with the scheme manager about security concerns; on 4 July 2022 it committed to addressing parking issues with the scheme manager; on 23 August 2022 it requested copies of records produced by the scheme manager; and from 28 September 2022 it put tailored support in place. It also offered training, which was sometimes declined by the scheme manager. Some of the measures implemented were ineffective (or their effectiveness was reduced) by unrelated conduct issues relating to the housing officer, which the landlord addressed separately once it became aware. Therefore, in the early stages of the period assessed, the landlord would have had no reason to believe that the actions it took in response to the resident’s reports would not result in an improvement. It later showed transparency by providing a list of the scheme manager’s duties when the resident requested this.
Overall, it was appropriate and in accordance with the landlord’s policy for it to decline to provide details of its investigation into staff conduct issues relating to the scheme manager, while giving assurance that the resident’s concerns were being dealt with. The Ombudsman appreciates that the service received by residents as a result of the scheme manager’s actions and inactions fell below the standard expected, and that this would have been disappointing and worrying for residents, many or all of whom were vulnerable. The landlord appeared to treat the scheme manager allegations as separate from the ASB allegations, and while it recognised that the scheme manager did not always deal with ASB incidents effectively, it did not acknowledge the additional impact of the ASB when combined with other environmental factors such as broken external lighting and parking issues caused by the neighbour’s carers. It therefore missed an opportunity to gain oversight of the resident’s experience and fully understand the cumulative effect on his day-to-day life as a leaseholder of Scheme A.
A finding of service failure has been made in relation to this aspect of the complaint, as while the landlord ultimately resolved the issue, it delayed in doing so, and did not always communicate effectively with the resident – for example, in relation to the scheme manager’s interviewing of his neighbour, or more recently in relation to their continued occupation of the cottage following their termination of employment (though some letters were sent). While it may not have been able to share detailed updates in relation to some matters, it should have demonstrated that it understood them and given assurance that it would address any ongoing or future matters of a similar nature. It also did not include the scheme manager issue in its initial summary of the resident’s complaint on 20 September 2022, offer sufficient redress within its stage 1 offer of £100, or specifically acknowledge the issue within its stage 2 offer of £900. It is possible that a lack of regular visits and involvement by the area manager contributed to the landlord’s apparently insular approach to management of Scheme A, and a recommendation has been made in relation to this. Likewise, if the landlord had actively sought more detailed evidence from residents in relation to their concerns about the scheme manager, it may have been in a position to take action sooner.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling was characterised by confusion and poor communication. At the outset, there was confusion as to when the complaint was made. When the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s actions on 4 August 2022 and stated “I feel it is time to make an official complaint”, it was reasonable for the landlord to treat this communication as a complaint. However, it is unclear whether it was his email of 4 August 2022 or his email to the chief executive on 7 August 2022 that the landlord actually identified as a complaint. The resident’s email of 4 August 2022 was titled “complaints procedure” and requested details of how a complaint could be made. The landlord did not provide information about its complaints process until 26 August 2022 – after it told the resident that it would open a complaint on 10 August 2022, and did so on 17 August 2022. The resident subsequently filled in an online complaint form on 30 August 2022. Given the level of correspondence, cross-messaging and involvement of different teams, it would have been good practice for the landlord to confirm with the resident what he wanted to include in his complaint at the point of acknowledgement, rather than a month later on 20 September 2022.
While the interval of 1 week between the landlord logging the resident’s complaint (on 10 August 2022) and acknowledging it (on 17 August 2022) was not excessive, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint form on 30 August 2022 at all. This caused him understandable concern, and led him to ask the landlord for an update on 18 September 2022. The almost 3-week period during which the resident did not know what was happening with his complaint, and received no update regarding its progress, was unacceptable. In his email of 18 September 2022 the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2, since he had not received a stage 1 response or update within the stipulated timeframe. The landlord told him 2 days later that his complaint remained at stage 1, but did not explain why or address the delay, which was unhelpful.
The landlord’s emails to the resident dated 20 September 2022 and 7 October 2022 read like stage 1 responses, but were not presented as such, and therefore denied the resident the opportunity to progress his complaint through the internal complaints process more swiftly. The landlord’s email on 20 September 2022 stated “If you remain unhappy with the actions we have taken at the first stage of the complaints process, please explain why and what you see as an acceptable resolution”, suggesting that the stage 1 investigation and actions had already concluded. This email also gave incorrect advice regarding what could be included in the stage 1 investigation, and omitted to include the scheme manager concerns (which were raised by the resident in his formal complaint on 30 August 2022, but not in his email of 4 August 2022). The landlord’s email on 7 October 2022 stated which aspects of the resident’s complaint had been upheld, and was in some respects more thorough than the eventual stage 1 response. It also concluded with the words “If you wish to escalate your complaint please let me know”, which was a premature offer as the stage 1 response had not yet been issued.
The stage 1 response dated 11 October 2022 stated that it was the landlord’s “final response” and that the resident now had the option of referring his case to this Service. While mention of this Service was appropriate, the wording was confusing and suggested that the complaint had completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. The stage 1 response also did not state whether or not the complaint was upheld, in contravention of the landlord’s policy. In summary, the landlord’s issuing of 3 responses at stage 1 (on 20 September 2022, 7 October 2022 and 11 October 2022) caused avoidable delays and confusion in relation to the status of the complaint and how it was defined. This lack of clarity was obvious from the resident’s email to the landlord’s chief executive on 23 September 2022, in which he said he disagreed that the issues had been resolved. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord made repeated attempts to close the complaint down without issuing a formal response, in order to minimise and deflect attention from the serious issues raised.
The confusion persisted after the resident requested to escalate his complaint. The resident first told the landlord he wished to proceed with his complaint on 16 October 2022, and later explicitly stated his escalation request on 26 October 2022. The landlord asked the resident what outcomes he sought on 27 October 2022, and despite the resident sending a detailed reply the same day, it asked this question again on 31 October 2022. This apparent disorganisation caused the resident to lose confidence in the landlord’s ability to understand and resolve the issues he was facing. The internal correspondence reviewed by this Service also indicates that the landlord did not wish to accept the escalation request but reluctantly concluded that it had no choice. The stage 2 investigation therefore originated from a position of resistance, rather than a genuine keenness to address the concerns of a vulnerable resident and offer support.
The stage 2 response began with an incomplete summary of the resident’s complaint, describing it as “the issues and concerns you have raised in relation to ASB at [Scheme A]”. Despite this, it went on to address the resident’s concerns about management of the scheme as well as the ASB. The response was thorough and contained appropriate admissions, commitments and apologies. The Ombudsman agrees that it was contradictory for the landlord to present its offer of £900 as both a “goodwill offer” and “settlement of this complaint”, but when the resident queried this, it appropriately confirmed that accepting the payment did not prevent the resident from escalating his complaint to this Service. However, it is concerning that – according to an update from the resident in September 2023 – the landlord later verbally asked him to “drop” his referral to the Ombudsman. This Service has seen no documentary evidence that this occurred and therefore cannot make a conclusive finding, but would clarify that any action by landlords to discourage residents from seeking external resolution of their complaints goes against the Ombudsman’s values of openness and continuous improvement through learning.
With regard to timescales, the landlord issued its stage 1 response 30 working days after the resident made his formal complaint, and 47 working days after his email of 4 August 2022 which the landlord appeared to treat as a complaint. Similarly, the stage 2 response was issued 20 working days after the landlord accepted the escalation request, but 30 working days after the resident said he wished to proceed with his complaint and 22 working days after he explicitly stated his escalation request. The responses at both stages therefore exceeded the timescales of 10 and 20 working days set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. While the delays themselves were not extreme – days rather than weeks – the lack of updates and confused communication had a clear negative impact on the resident’s experience of the process. It is noted that these communication issues have (to some extent) continued since the time of the complaint, with an officer allocated to take over the ASB investigation in April 2023 providing less frequent updates and visits, and limited explanation given to residents regarding the former scheme manager’s occupation of the on-site cottage accommodation 5 months after they ceased to be employed. The learning from the complaint, documented on an internal form dated 8 December 2022, does not appear to have resulted in improvement across all aspects of the landlord’s practice, and it is hoped that this determination provokes more productive organisational reflection.
The overall offer of £900, while broadly in line with what the Ombudsman would expect at the time of the offer, did not reflect all aspects of the resident’s complaint and all areas in which the landlord admitted failure. Additional awards have been ordered in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance. A finding of severe maladministration in relation to complaint handling has been made, due to the landlord’s delay in identifying and logging the complaint, poor communication, departures from its policy, confused and duplicitous responses, incorrect advice, insufficient and confusingly worded offer of financial redress, and delays resulting in a protracted 16-week complaints process.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from a neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the scheme manager;
2. severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not act on the resident’s reports of ASB or follow its procedure relating to contact and vulnerability assessments for 6 months. During this period it sent him an email in which it appeared to accuse him of “tale telling”, despite encouraging residents to provide evidence of ASB. This meant that the resident was left in a situation that he found distressing, offensive, frightening, embarrassing when his family visited, and potentially dangerous, without adequate support. The landlord investigated the ASB and communicated more effectively from September 2022 onwards, accepted and apologised for its failures, and ultimately made an offer of redress that – in the Ombudsman’s opinion – resolved this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily.
The landlord took positive action in response to some of the resident’s reports of misconduct and inaction by its scheme manager. It was appropriate for it to decline to provide details of its investigation into a member of staff and to reassure the resident that it was dealing with the situation. It ultimately resolved the situation over a year later when the officer was apparently dismissed. However, it treated the scheme manager issues in isolation from the ASB issues when the 2 were linked, did not address the scheme manager issues sufficiently within its complaints responses and offers of financial redress, and missed opportunities to take additional actions which may have enabled it to deal with the matter sooner.
The landlord’s complaint handling was confused and disorganised. It delayed in identifying, logging and acknowledging the resident’s complaint, and its definition of the complaint was inconsistent between its communications. It gave incorrect advice regarding what it could include in its stage 1 response and confusing information regarding what stage the complaint had reached. Prior to issuing its stage 1 response, it sent 2 emails that acted in lieu of a stage 1 response. The stage 1 response did not state whether the complaint was upheld. Both complaint responses were delayed. The landlord also resisted and delayed in accepting the resident’s escalation request, and repeatedly asked what outcome he was seeking. Its communication was poor, its wording regarding financial redress contradictory, and the level of redress insufficient.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Reiterate its apology to the resident for its inadequate and delayed response to his ASB reports, management concerns and complaint. The apology should be made in writing by the landlord’s chief executive and should acknowledge the impacts of these issues on the resident.
2. Pay the resident £1,100, comprising:
  1. £100 for its service failure in its response to his concerns about the scheme manager;
  2. £1,000 for its complaint handling failures.
3. Provide a further update to residents of Scheme A in relation to the scheme manager post and the on-site cottage accommodation, following its letter of 15 December 2023, in line with its data protection responsibilities.
4. Confirm to the resident its current practice in terms of approving or allowing potential buyers to purchase leasehold accommodation at Scheme A. Its explanation should go beyond the terms of the lease and detail the process it follows in interviewing prospective residents (for example, whether it requires an interview with all prospective occupants, and what supporting evidence it requires, if any).
5. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.
The landlord is ordered to carry out a review of the resident’s case within 12 weeks of the date of this report. The review should consider its handling of the resident’s ASB reports and complaint. A copy of the resulting review document, detailing its findings and lessons learned, should be provided to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that, in addition to the £1,100 ordered above, the landlord pays the resident the £900 offered in its stage 2 complaint response (if it has not already done so).
It is recommended that the landlord carries out regular (at least 2-monthly) management visits to Scheme A, with advance notice of managers’ visits and availability to be given to residents, and maintains increased oversight of the scheme until a permanent scheme manager is in post and established in their role.
It is recommended that the landlord puts measures in place to seek and consider regular feedback from residents of Scheme A. Residents should have the option to give feedback anonymously (but should not feel obliged to do so) and using a method of their choice (ie verbally, via letter/form or email).
Following the case review ordered above, it is recommended that the landlord considers using this case as a learning example in future training for its scheme managers and other relevant staff.