Soho Housing Association Limited (202214269)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214269

Soho Housing Association Limited

30 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident about its handling of their antisocial behaviour (‘ASB’) reports.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record-keeping.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat in a block. The resident has vulnerabilities and they have detailed that the impact of ASB on them includes their living in fear of homophobia and transphobia, and feeling suicidal.
The resident is understood to have lived at the block since around 2019. They are understood to have reported ASB and criminal behaviour since then by non-residents accessing the block and by other residents. In 2022, the landlord consulted residents about installing additional security at the block, after which it is understood that it was agreed for CCTV and a new door entry / intercom system to be installed. It is understood that CCTV was installed in 2023 but the new door entry / intercom system has not yet been.
Between December 2022 and January 2024, the information seen shows that the resident has reported issues to the landlord and police that included:
1. December 2022: ASB from neighbour A.
2. January 2023: Drug activity in communal areas by intruders.
3. February 2023: Theft and damage by neighbour B, and an attempted attack by neighbour A which involved a glass bottle being thrown at the resident’s door.
4. March 2023: ASB from neighbour A. The same month, the information provided indicates that the resident’s solicitors issued pre-action letters against neighbour A and neighbour B in respect to verbal and aggressive behaviour.
5. June 2023: Drug activity and trespass in communal areas by intruders.
6. July 2023: ASB and noise for lengthy periods from neighbour A.
7. December 2023: ASB and alleged drug activity by a visitor to neighbour B.
8. January 2024: Threats by neighbour B.
In 2022, the landlord acknowledged ASB from other residents, confirmed it was working alongside officers to help enforce the law where necessary, and advised the resident to contact emergency services if they ever felt in danger. The information provided advises that the police have visited the resident multiple times about their reports about neighbours and theft.
In late 2022, the landlord updated the resident that an emergency injunction had been taken out against neighbour A, with the power of arrest, forbidding neighbour A from certain behaviours.
In March 2023, the landlord offered to meet with the resident to discuss their concerns and understand how it can help with any support needs.
In June 2023, following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaints about ASB, after which there were discussions between the Ombudsman and the landlord to clarify the complaints the resident had raised. It is understood that the resident was unhappy with criminal behaviour and ASB from residents and non-residents at the block, the length of time it was taking for the landlord to resolve issues with neighbours, and the lack of progress with the installation of the new door entry / intercom system due to issues with current access at the block.
On 25 October 2023, the landlord provided a stage 1 response.
1. It noted the resident had reported ASB in the block that included verbal threats, harassment, hate crime, physical violence, drug use, unlawful use of the premises for sex acts, and thefts, involving both residents and intruders.
2. It said that from its records all ASB reports were dealt with to the best of its abilities. It said that in reports involving residents there had been differing accounts, which made tenancy action difficult, and it had sometimes needed to write to parties as victims and perpetrators. It noted it had installed CCTV which had reduced ASB reports in the building involving residents. It said that for reports of intruders it was awaiting dates from contractors for installation of a new intercom system, and residents were reminded not to allow access to anyone they did not know.
3. It said that where crimes were reported it worked closely with the police. It said that for any resident proved to have breached their tenancy in relation to criminal behaviour, enforcement action had been progressed and it had been supporting and attending court for several cases. It noted that it was sharing as much information as possible about these with the resident, and that it had previously advised that residents’ situations may complicate and delay possession proceedings.
4. It acknowledged that ASB could be very distressing and that it had impacted the resident. It reassured them that everything was being done to prevent recurrences. It noted the resident was working with victim support but offered to help support referral to any other services the resident felt they would benefit from.
5. It acknowledged and apologised for the delay in its complaint response, due to confusion, and awarded £30.
The resident requested escalation of the complaint in November 2023 and raised dissatisfaction with it handling, including about neighbour B who they said had continued to verbally abuse them up until September 2023.
On 2 February 2024, the landlord provided a stage 2 response.
1. It noted that the resident was dissatisfied with how ASB involving residents had been handled. It acknowledged the impact of the ASB and said such cases were often very complex and can contain contradictory accounts.
2. It acknowledged the resident’s frustration with how long an enforcement case with neighbour A went on for. It explained it housed vulnerable people, and that while it had taken legal action this was a long and complicated process. It confirmed that the neighbour’s tenancy had now ended. It said that for an ASB case with neighbour B, it had sent warning letters to neighbour B about their behaviour and provided statements and evidence to the police, who were currently handling the case. It said that due to the nature of the accusations and conflicting accounts it could not take legal action to end anyone’s tenancy until the police investigation had completed.
3. It noted that there had been instances of intruders accessing the communal area. It said tackling this relied on police intervention and security measures. It advised the resident not to engage with or record intruders but to contact it and the police, and it noted that a new intercom system was going to be installed.
4. It concluded that action about ASB involving residents had been taken, but it acknowledged and apologised that communication had not been to the standard and frequency expected. It also acknowledged and apologised that the installation of the new intercom system had taken longer than anticipated to start. It awarded £185, which comprised £30 for the stage 1 response delay, £30 for the stage 2 response delay, £75 for communication, and £50 for the delay installing the intercom.
The resident accepted the £185 compensation, and then raised dissatisfaction in late March 2024 that this had not been paid. From February 2024, the information seen shows that the resident has reported further issues that include multiple reports of ASB by neighbour B and ASB by non-residents in communal areas including drug activity, urination damage to a light and The resident has stated dissatisfaction that ASB issues have gone on for 5 years and that the installation of the intercom system has been delayed. They recently said that they are having an ASB review with their local authority.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord in April 2024 to request information for our investigation. This was not provided and the landlord was issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order in July 2024. This investigation has progressed without any evidence being supplied by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident refers to issues with the communal gate in correspondence about this complaint. This is not investigated in this complaint, as the landlord provided a separate stage 1 complaint response in respect to the communal gate, and the resident was provided advice about escalating that complaint. This investigation mainly focuses on ASB issues that were the subject of complaint responses from the landlord on 25 October 2023 and 2 February 2024.
The resident says ASB has impacted them to the extent that they dropped out of a degree and incurred significant costs. The Ombudsman understands how the resident has been impacted, but we do not make definitive determinations about liability and negligence, and only an insurer or the courts can determine any claim for damages. The resident has the option to seek independent advice for this aspect.
The Ombudsman also notes that it is not in our role to determine whether incidents or ASB has occurred, or whether someone should be evicted. However, we can assess if the landlord followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably.

The landlord’s response to the resident about its handling of their antisocial behaviour (‘ASB’) reports

ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are also often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available to a landlord or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not include a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
Following ASB reports, it is necessary for the landlord to respond in accordance with its ASB policies, such as assess risks; discuss cases with those involved; create action plans; use available tools to encourage parties against ASB; discuss and monitor the situation with other agencies; consider vulnerability and carry out impact assessments; and deal with reports in a proportionate and appropriate manner, considering its obligation as landlord to treat allegations from all of its customers in a consistent and evidence-led way.
In this case, the landlord has acknowledged the impact of ASB on the resident, and detailed some actions it has taken for ASB from non-residents and residents at the block in its October 2023 and February 2024 complaint responses. It also acknowledged issues with poor communication and delayed installation of the new intercom system, and awarded £125 for these aspects. The landlord’s responses seem potentially reasonable, however it has provided no evidence in order to fully assess these.
The landlord explained that neighbour A’s tenancy has ended. The Ombudsman can see some information about earlier actions it took such as issue an emergency injunction in late 2022. This is in line with the type of interventions that a court may expect to see before a landlord commenced legal action such as possession proceedings against a tenant. The Ombudsman understands if the resident was frustrated with slow progress, but the landlord’s explanation that tenancy enforcement proceedings can be complicated and lengthy was reasonable. However, it is not satisfactory that the landlord provides no clear evidence of its actions for reports the resident made in 2023, which included reports of neighbour A making noise disturbance and throwing a glass bottle.
The landlord explained that warnings were given to neighbour B, it had been cooperating with a police investigation, and it would provide an update if it received any further information. The information seen does not provide a clear picture of all the reports that the resident made about neighbour B. The information provided show a small number of reports from February 2023 to February 2024, while the resident indicates that neighbour B has verbally assaulted them for an ongoing period, and the landlord’s response seems to relate to a ‘revenge porn’ incident that the Ombudsman has seen limited information about. The landlord’s explanation that it would need to await the conclusion of a police investigation seems reasonable for any alleged criminal incidents that occurred. However, the landlord should have been clearer in its responses and evidence to us about the reports the resident had made, what reports awaited conclusion of a police investigation, and what actions or positions it had taken for other reports.
The information seen shows that the resident has been making reports up until the present day and expressing frustration with the landlord’s handling. It is noted that there are references to it meeting with the resident, seeking to understand how it can help with any support needs they have, and offering to make referrals to any services the resident might feel they may benefit from, which shows it was seeking to be sensitive to their vulnerabilities. However, there is no evidence of what action plan was or is in place to investigate and respond to the resident’s reports. The complaint responses were a missed opportunity for the landlord to clearly communicate what action plan was in place to handle the resident’s ongoing reports, particularly about neighbour B, and how regularly they would be reviewed and responded to.
Overall, while the landlord acknowledged issues, it has provided no evidence to this investigation for its actions for ASB reports and how it has worked with the police, including for the reports about neighbour B. Its final response also lacked clarity about its position on any other ASB reports about neighbour B that were not subject of police investigation, and what its general action plan was for considering and responding to ongoing reports from the resident. This would have been beneficial to demonstrate that it was effectively managing matters as well as effectively communicating to the resident. This does not show any impactful improvement to the landlord’s communication after it acknowledged issues with this.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s stage 1 response was provided 4 months after the Ombudsman contacted the landlord, and its stage 2 response was provided over 2 months after the resident asked it to escalate the complaint. These were unreasonable delays. The landlord subsequently acknowledged and apologised for its delayed complaint responses, and awarded £60. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord overall reasonably acknowledged and remedied the delays in its complaint responses.

Record-keeping

The landlord has provided no evidence to allow this investigation to fully assess its handling of the resident’s ASB reports, as noted above. The landlord should be able to show it has kept adequate records about ASB reports and its actions in response to them. It should then be able to provide these and information used as the basis for its complaint responses to our investigations. The lack of provision of information for this investigation also goes against its member obligations under paragraph 10 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This leads the Ombudsman to find a service failure in the landlord’s record-keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about its handling of their antisocial behaviour (‘ASB’) reports.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s record-keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks, pay the resident £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the issues identified. This comprises £200 for the issues with ASB handling, and £100 for the issues with record-keeping, and is in addition to the £185 the landlord awarded which it should pay if it has not already.
The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks:
1. review the status of the resident’s ASB reports over the past year, including about neighbour B, making contact with the police if necessary to establish the status of any investigations.
2. write to the resident and:
  1. update them about the outcomes to their ASB reports.
  2. confirm what its action plan is for reports from the resident about alleged repeat perpetrators such as neighbour B, including how regularly it will review the resident’s reports and update the resident about them.
The landlord is recommended to liaise with the resident and the local authority concerning the local authority’s recent review of the ASB, if this occurred, to discuss the outcome and consider if any action is required.
The landlord is recommended to:
1. review its record-keeping and our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.
2. ensure it maintains adequate records.
3. ensure it has sufficient processes in place respond to evidence requests from the Ombudsman in a timely manner.