Sanctuary Housing Association (202325736)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325736

Sanctuary Housing Association

28 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.

Background

  1. The resident held an assured non-shorthold tenancy between 10 June 2022 and 25 June 2024. The property is described as a 1 bedroom ground floor flat.
  2. The resident is over pension age and has medical conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder, lupus, osteoarthritis and a mental health condition.
  3. The reports of anti-social behaviour and noise disturbance relate to the resident’s neighbour who will be referred to as “Tenant A” within the report. The tenancy agreement for Tenant A has not been provided for this investigation. However, it has been assumed that the tenancy terms will be the same as for the resident.
  4. The resident made reports to the landlord about the actions of Tenant A in July 2023 and requested that it attend a meeting with a councillor from the local authority and the police in September 2023. The meeting took place in October 2023 where the resident expressed her concerns about Tenant A. She described Tenant A’s behaviour towards her as controlling and made reports of noise disturbance such as hearing banging from his property. In addition, she made an allegation of being stalked and requested that the landlord act.
  5. On 5 October 2023, the resident made a complaint to the landlord that for over a year, the housing officer had supported Tenant A despite her reports of harassment. Having written to the chief executive, the regional director had cancelled a meeting, which the councillor had agreed to attend and was her opportunity to provide the 5 witness statements she had obtained. The resident advised that she had post-traumatic stress disorder and her physical and mental health were being impacted by living at the property. Therefore, her preferred outcome was to move to another property.
  6. The landlord attended a meeting with the resident on 25 October 2023 and agreed to reassign the management of the anti-social behaviour investigation to another officer. On 15 November 2023, a home visit was carried out to the resident’s property to discuss her reports of anti-social behaviour. A further visit was carried out on 26 January 2024 to the resident and Tenant A to discuss the signing of an acceptable behaviour agreement.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 20 February 2024. It advised that its officers had visited to discuss the harassment allegations and to complete the transfer application. It had followed its anti-social behaviour procedures and both parties had agreed to sign the acceptable behaviour agreement. Also, it had not received any further reports of harassment. Once a suitable property became available, the resident would be contacted to arrange a viewing. It made a compensation award of £150, broken down as £100 for its delay in raising her complaint and £50 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its delays.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 21 February 2024. She advised that she was unhappy with the compensation award as she had submitted at least 10 crime reference numbers and was having to take pain killers. In addition, Tenant A had belittled her, continued to stalk her and was known to have harassed at least 3 other residents who had lived in the building.
  9. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 6 March 2024. In summary, it said:
    1. Complaint handling
      1. It recognised its delay in recording and acknowledging the resident’s complaint. It apologised for not meeting and complying with its service standards.
    2. Anti-social behaviour
      1. It recognised that the meeting requested by the resident did not take place until October 2023 and that there was a delay in it starting its investigations into her report of anti-social behaviour.
      2. There was insufficient evidence for it to take tenancy action against Tenant A. It is expected that informal measures are exhausted before exploring formal tenancy action.
    3. Transfer
      1. It stated that the resident had been provided with information, advice and support to make a transfer request and that there was a wait time before a suitable property became available.
    4. Conclusion
      1. The complaint had been partially upheld.
      2. A compensation award was made of £550. This was broken down as: £250 for its delayed stage 1 response (increased from the £100 awarded at its first stage); £50 for its delay in meeting with the resident; £100 for the delay in assigning the anti-social behaviour case; £150 for the time, trouble and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
  10. After the complaint process ended, the resident accepted the landlord’s compensation offer. After viewing a property in April 2024, the resident’s new tenancy started on 26 June 2024.
  11. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions and escalated the complaint to this Service. The resident stated that the landlord had failed to act following her reports of anti-social behaviour.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
    1. be fair;
    2. put things right;
    3. learn from outcomes.
  2. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour

  1. It is acknowledged that the type of behaviour reported by the resident will have been a source of distress for her. The resident’s feelings are acknowledged. Nevertheless, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess whether the landlord followed its policies, treated the resident fairly, and whether its actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
  2. In July 2023, the landlord was investigating a report of noise disturbance by the resident when she made a counter allegation of anti-social behaviour regarding Tenant A. The behaviour reported by the resident related to harassment by Tenant A and the resident informed the landlord that she had a crime reference number. The earliest report of an anti-social behaviour case being opened is 20 September 2023. This was not reasonable as the resident’s allegation fell within its definition of anti-social behaviour. Therefore, the delay was not in line with the timescales outlined in its anti-social behaviour policy which says that it will open an anti-social behaviour case within a maximum of 5 working days. It took 47 working days. The landlord in its review of the complaint acknowledged that it had taken too long to open an anti-social behaviour case and made a compensation award for its service failure.
  3. The resident requested a meeting on 1 September 2023 with the landlord, a councillor from the local authority and the police to discuss her concerns. This meeting did not take place until 3 October 2023 with the delays in the meeting being held due to the unavailability of a senior leader. In its final complaint response, the landlord reflected and acknowledged that the resident had experienced an unacceptable delay as an earlier appointment could have been arranged with her. For its service failure, it apologised and made a compensation award to the resident.
  4. The landlord took the following steps to investigate the reports of harassment and noise disturbance made by Tenant A. It held meetings and undertook visits to the resident between 3 October 2023 to 26 January 2024 regarding her allegations of harassment. The video footage, recorded by the resident, was sent to the police on 24 October 2023 and a police disclosure request was made on 17 November 2023. In addition, it gave appropriate advice that, before it could act, it required evidence to support her allegations of harassment by Tenant A and requested that she provide dates and times of incidents that occurred. These were reasonable actions to have a complete understanding of the resident’s concerns, work with its partners and manage the resident’s expectations, setting out what she could expect in response to her allegations of harassment.
  5. The resident advised that her preferred outcome was to move to another property. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to assist the resident with the completion of a transfer application. The landlord also acted in line with its anti-social behaviour policies by carrying out a case review and completing a vulnerability assessment. The landlord also suggested mediation as a resolution to the issues raised by the resident. This was reasonable in the circumstances. It is noted that the offer of mediation was refused by the resident.
  6. The resident raised concern about the housing officer investigating the anti-social behaviour complaint. Looking at the concern raised by the resident, this did not relate to employment breaches requiring action under the landlord’s code of conduct. The landlord listened to the resident’s concern regarding the housing officer relationship with Tenant A and that the housing officer had advised that it was unlikely that the resident could obtain a transfer to another property.
  7. The landlord has demonstrated that it considered the information given by the housing officer reflected the uncertainty about the long-term future of the building. Therefore, it was not unreasonable for the housing officer to manage the resident’s expectations regarding the likely prospect of a move. It is noted that the resident had, within the previous 2 years, relocated within the scheme. The landlord determined that the resident’s relationship with the housing officer had broken down and assigned the investigation of the anti-social behaviour reports to another housing officer. This was a reasonable approach to give reassurance to the resident that her concerns had been heard and were being addressed. It was also important for the landlord to demonstrate fairness by handing the anti-social investigation to a housing officer who was not known to either party.
  8. The landlord contacted the resident when it received information from the police in December 2023 that they did not intend to take any further action as they could not evidence the reports of harassment. It was appropriate that the landlord kept the resident updated and shared information promptly with her. The resident had suggested that the landlord pursue enforcement action against Tenant A. However, a decision to take possession of a property can only be made through a court of law. Legal action, such as eviction, cannot usually be undertaken except as a last resort where all other efforts at resolution have failed. The lack of evidence limited the actions that could be taken by the landlord and there were therefore no failures on its part in this regard.
  9. The landlord acted reasonably when it agreed to review (with the police) video footage provided by the resident. After viewing the video footage, it was in agreement with the police that there was no evidence of the reports of harassment or stalking that the resident had made. The resident asserted that action by either the landlord or the police had caused damage to the video footage she had supplied and that was why the incidents she recorded were not visible. This Service has not seen the video footage supplied by the resident to the landlord and/or police.
  10. However, the evidence shows that the landlord and the police reviewed the footage at the times of the incident provided by the resident. When it could not see evidence of the incidents, a decision was made to review the video footage an hour earlier and an hour later than the resident stated. Ultimately, the resident’s report of anti-social behaviour could not be independently substantiated. The landlord took reasonable steps to verify her report but was unable to do so. It is recognised that the situation was a cause of distress for the resident, but as there was a lack of evidence, the landlord was not in a position to take formal action against Tenant A.
  11. The landlord acted appropriately when it met with the resident in January 2024 regarding 3 new reported incidents that month. At the same visit, it appropriately addressed a counter allegation it had received from Tenant A regarding an incident on 17 January 2024, which was accepted by the resident. It was reasonable that the landlord speak to both parties about signing an acceptable behaviour agreement to resolve the reported behaviours and to go some way to repair their relationship.
  12. The resident agreed to sign the acceptable behaviour agreement and the landlord updated the resident regarding the transfer application she had made, advising that she would be considered for the next vacancy. These were reasonable actions as the landlord again acted in line with its anti-social behaviour policy to investigate appropriately and take informal steps to resolve a neighbour dispute.
  13. The community safety team notified the landlord on 20 February 2024 that the resident had made a community trigger request which would be led by the police. On 4 March 2024, the landlord was informed that the reported incidents did not meet the threshold to be considered stalking and the were considered to be a neighbour dispute.
  14. Through the complaints process, the landlord sought to put matters right. It rightly acknowledged its service and complaint handling failures and recognised that it could have better handled its anti-social behaviour investigation. It made an overall compensation award of £550, including £250 for complaint handling. The landlord’s compensation policy offers different categories of awards which it applied when assessing its service failures.
  15. The compensation policy states that an award up to £50 can be made where issues have had a low impact on the resident. The landlord assessed that the resident had experienced a minor inconvenience for its delay in attending the meeting with its senior leader. For its case management failures of the anti-social behaviour investigation, it made a compensation award of £100. Its compensation policy states an award between £51 to £150 can be made for moderate impact to residents.
  16. For the overall, time, trouble and inconvenience experienced by the resident, it made an award of £150 which was at the higher end of that category and acknowledged the impact to the resident. The landlord also recognised that the resident experienced delays at the beginning of the complaint process, when it delayed in registering, acknowledging and providing the resident with a complaint response. Its compensation policy states that awards in excess of £151 to £400 reflect high impact to the resident. The landlord award of £250 for time, trouble and inconvenience fell within this higher category and was reasonable in light of the resident’s experiences. It was also reasonable that the landlord apologised to the resident for its delays and the distress caused to her by this.
  17. The landlord’s records show that it generally acted reasonably in response to the reports of anti-social behaviour. It acknowledged delays with its case management but also met with, and carried out visits to, the resident regarding the allegations of harassment. It explained the actions it had taken to investigate her allegations of harassment and explained why it could not take further steps. The landlord considered the available evidence and it has shown that it actively engaged with the police, and with the community safety team, to try and assist the resident. Given the lack of clear evidence to support the resident’s reports of harassment, and that the police had stated that they were not taking any action, it was reasonable for the landlord to say that it did not have enough evidence to justify starting formal legal action against Tenant A.
  18. Ultimately, the evidence shows that there were some service failures but the landlord’s offer of compensation and its apology represented appropriate redress and resolved this complaint satisfactorily. It is noted that the resident was able to secure a transfer shortly after the complaint process ended.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of her reports of anti-social behaviour satisfactorily.