Southern Housing Group Limited (202114779)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114779

Southern Housing Group Limited

25 May 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which commenced on 27 May 1996. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
The property is described as a one-bedroom flat.
The resident provided a medical letter stating that he suffers from low mood.
The landlord’s ASB and hate crime policy defines ASB as conduct that has caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises or conduct that is capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person’.
In addition, the ASB and hate crime policy states that ASB includes verbal, physical abuse and behaving in an intimidating manner. Once reports of ASB are received, it will carry out a risk assessment and consider all the circumstances. Furthermore, it understands that people reporting ASB may be worried that the information shared may be disclosed to third parties. In such circumstances it would accept that the information has been communicated confidentially and seek consent before the information is shared.
The landlord’s complaints policy advises that complaints considered at its first stage will be resolved within 10 working days. Complaints escalated to the final stage will be considered as either a compensation review, complaint review panel or a senior management review. The compensation review will be completed within 10 working days. The complaint review panel or senior management review will be completed within 20 working days. Petitions that are received will be dealt with in line with its complaints policy.
The landlord’s unacceptable behaviour policy includes amongst its definition of persistent behaviour as unreasonably refusing to deal with a particular member of staff. In those circumstances, where necessary, it will issue a written warning before any further action is taken. The action can include restricted contact with a specific member of staff for a specified period of time.

Scope of investigation

The resident complained about the actions of the housing services manager (HSM) with regard to the gas servicing in 2014. There is no evidence that the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord at that time which subsequently exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. As this matter is historical and did not complete the landlord’s complaints process within a reasonable period of the matter occurring, then this investigation will focus on events from June 2021. Reference to any other event will be for context only.

Summary of events

Following an incident in the bin store on 11 June 2021, the landlord wrote to all residents on 17 June 2021 asking for witnesses to the incident to come forward. The letter advised that it had already spoken to some residents and that it would give anonymity to anyone that gave evidence who did not want their identity revealed. In addition, it was in communication with the police.
On 6 July 2021, the landlord sent the resident a warning letter regarding the incident that had taken place on 11 June 2021. The letter advised:
1. That the resident had been aggressive and threatening towards another resident in the bin store.
2. It had previously received complaints about the resident’s behaviour which it had bought to the resident’s attention. Another resident had left the building as a result of harassment from the resident.
3. It reminded the resident that his tenancy agreement obliged him not to cause nuisance or annoyance to his neighbours and members of staff.
4. It considered his behaviour to have constituted a breach of his tenancy and that further incidents could result in a Notice of Seeking Possession being issued which could result in him losing his home.
5. If the resident needed support, he should contact the relevant support services.
The resident sent the landlord a medical letter on 16 July 2021 informing the landlord that he was suffering from low mood and that he was affected by his housing situation.
On 2 August 2021, the resident called the landlord regarding the warning letter. The resident advised that he had not been treated fairly as the landlord had not spoken to him before it issued the warning letter about the incident in June 2021.
The resident made a complaint on 3 August 2021. He complained that:
1. The HSM had lied about his conduct in 2014, 2020 and 2021 and he had emails to confirm this. He had not previously complained about the HSM as he had a good relationship with the previous area service manager (ASM).
2. The landlord had not spoken to his witness, who was a member of the landlord’s staff regarding the incident on 11 June 2021. It was unlikely that there could have been other witnesses to the incident other than those present in the bin store.
3. He was the victim of the incident as he was the person threatened with a bottle by the alleged victim inside and outside the bin store.
4. The landlord had classified the incident as serious when the police were not called and no one was injured.
5. The landlord had not followed its own ASB policy.
The resident advised that his preferred outcome was for the landlord to give reason for sending him a warning letter in July 2021 without obtaining his version of events. He requested that the landlord remove the warning letter from his file.
On the same day, 3 August 2021, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and informed the resident it would respond within 10 working days. In addition, the landlord’s internal records noted that it had spoken to a number of residents and had received consistent statements regarding the incident in the bin store.
The landlord received reports on 4 August 2021, that the resident was knocking on his neighbours door requesting that they sign a petition to get the HSM removed from managing the site. The landlord was informed that residents had signed the petition. However, they advised that they had felt pressurised to do so as they felt intimidated by the resident’s behaviour.
In response, the landlord sent the resident a warning letter advising that it had come to its attention that he had been contacting residents requesting that they sign a petition to remove the HSM from her role. It advised that residents had felt intimidated by the resident’s behaviour. It confirmed that the HSM would continue to manage the site. However, going forward, the resident should not make direct contact with the HSM. Instead, he should contact the ASM or another team member to resolve any concerns he had.
The resident contacted the landlord on four occasions in August: 5 August 2021, 6 August 2021, 9 August 2021 and 12 August 2021. The resident maintained that the landlord had not given him the opportunity to give his version of the events that had occurred on 11 June 2021.
On 13 August 2021, the resident called the landlord regarding the warning letter about the petition concerning the HSM. The resident stated that he believed that the HSM was responsible for the warning letter being sent and he disputed organising the petition. Also, he knew the identity of the person who had done so and that the ASM had signed both warning letters that he had received. Furthermore, he felt victimised by the landlord.
The resident updated his complaint on 17 August 2021 to include the:
1. Conduct of the ASM as she had said in the warning letter ‘that a number of residents had bought their concern to her attention’.
2. HSM had taken him to court in 2013/2014 for gas servicing. The HSM had not properly investigated his complaint about noise disturbance in 2020 from the previous neighbour living above. Instead of investigating his concerns, the HSM had accused him of threatening the neighbour. Also, the previous ASM had agreed that he should not make a complaint.
3. The HSM had sent a letter informing residents that there would not be repercussions if they came forward as witnesses to the incident in June 2021. However, the police were not called and the alleged victim was not injured. The alleged victim had described the incident as a dispute between two neighbours. The landlord had not considered that, he was the person threatened with a bottle.
4. The resident requested that the landlord confirm whether it held records of the statements that the witnesses had made.
On the following day, 18 August 2021, the resident spoke to the landlord to give his version of events regarding the incident in June 2021. During the conversation, the resident gave information regarding his relationship with the HSM regarding the gas safety check in 2014 and the noise disturbance from the neighbour living above. He explained that the incident that occurred in June 2021 involved the previous caretaker who lived in the building. He advised that the current caretaker witnessed the incident and he believed that he did not want to get involved because of his relationship with the HSM. The landlord informed the resident that it would need an extra 10 working days to complete its complaint investigation.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 31 August 2021. The key findings were:
1. The warning letter was sent on 4 August 2021 as residents expressed that they felt intimidated in the way the resident contacted them to sign the petition.
2. Going forward, any tenancy-related matters should be directed to the ASM and not the HSM. It noted that this was the remedy sought by the resident.
3. The HSM would continue in her role and remain responsible for the management of the building.
4. It had not initiated information about the petition. This had been bought to its attention by other residents.
5. Apologised for any inconvenience experienced by the resident.
On receiving the landlord’s complaint response, the resident remained dissatisfied and requested for this complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the complaint procedure. The resident complained that:
1. The complaint investigator had not carried out a proper investigation as his correspondence had not been read.
2. The landlord had not spoken to his witness.
3. His complaint also concerned the conduct of the ASM. He maintained that he had not contacted his neighbours to request that they sign the petition to remove the HSM. His preferred outcome was for his name to be cleared and the ASB warnings to be removed from his file. He advised that he would be commenting on LinkedIn, contacting his MP and speaking to an ITV journalist about the conduct of the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged the Stage 2 complaint on 1 September 2021.
The landlord’s internal records show that the resident advised that the incident in the bin room had started as the ex-caretaker was playing loud music in the bin store. Following this, an argument and altercation had occurred which was witnessed by a current member of the estate care team.
Furthermore, the resident was unhappy that the HSM had written to all residents asking for witnesses to come forward regarding the incident. In addition, he had received a warning letter for organising a petition for the removal of the HSM.
The landlord’s internal records show that on 14 September 2021, the ASM provided evidence for the complaint. In summary she advised that:
1. She was aware that the resident was dissatisfied with the HSM. It was previously agreed that the previous ASM would handle communication with the resident.
2. It had been recently agreed for the HSM to restart communicating with the resident.
3. The investigation into the incident in June 2021 included information from witnesses.
4. There was an ASB action plan in place. Also, there were no plans to accelerate action by taking possession action or injunction proceedings.
5. It had considered the information from four witnesses who had confirmed that it was the resident who instigated the petition and the resident’s account that it was started by another resident. The warning letter was issued as it was satisfied that the petition was started by the resident.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 27 September 2021 at the final stage of the complaint procedure. The key findings were:
1. The incident in June 2021 had been investigated in line with its ASB policy. The warning letter was issued on 6 July 2021 and it did not intend to take any further action related to the incident in the bin room unless there were further breaches of tenancy.
2. It had received information that the resident had initiated a petition for the removal of the HSM. This was considered a breach of its unacceptable behaviour policy and it had issued the warning letter on 4 August 2021.
3. The resident was not contacted to provide his version of the events that occurred in June 2011 as the role of the customer relations team (CRT) is to ensure that its policies and procedures have been followed and not to investigate the ASB.
4. Following its request for further witnesses to the incident in June 2021 it had received further information. The resident had denied that he was responsible for starting the petition, however, he had not provided the name of the person who instigated the petition.
5. It was satisfied with the conduct of its staff and did not have a reason to carry out disciplinary action against the staff the resident had complained about.
6. The resident should stop writing to its staff using capital letters, threatening to publicise their names on social media and making derogatory comments about its staff. It said that it considered this to be unacceptable behaviour.
7. It confirmed that the warning letters would not be removed from his file.
After the complaint process was exhausted, the resident continued to communicate his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s decision not to remove the warning letters from his file. The resident maintained that:
1. The landlord had not followed its own ASB policy as it had not spoken to him about the incident in June 2021.
2. The landlord had not spoken to the witness to the incident on 11 June 2021.
3. He maintained that he did not knock on his neighbour’s doors or start the petition requesting for the removal of the HSM.
4. The complaint investigation was not independent as the ASM who he had complained about was involved in the complaint investigation.
The landlord informed the resident on 29 September 2021 that the Chief Executive had reviewed his email and an internal review of his complaint would be carried out.
On 1 October 2021, the landlord informed the resident that it would not be changing its final complaint response and it signposted the resident to this Service if he remained dissatisfied with its decision.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that verbal or physical abuse is considered ASB. Looking at the available information, an incident took place in the bin store in June 2021, the resident, the ex-caretaker and the current caretaker were present. The incident was reported to the landlord. The information supplied to this Service does not make clear who made the report.
The ASB policy says that each report of ASB will be risk assessed. The landlord acted in accordance with this as once it was advised of the incident, it wrote to all residents to obtain more information about what had occurred in the bin store. This was appropriate action to take to ensure that it obtained reliable information which it could use to decide on the most appropriate action to take, if any.
The ASB policy also says that the landlord will act sensitively regarding the reports of ASB it receives. This applies to both victims and perpetuators of ASB. The landlord acted in accordance with this as the content of its communication reassured residents that they could keep their anonymity if they were scared of repercussions by supplying evidence. Furthermore, this was necessary for residents with relevant information to feel assured that any information provided would be handled confidentially as part of the investigation.
The landlord has a number of tools available to prevent and reduce the occurrence of ASB. This includes interviewing the alleged perpetuator. From the available information, whilst there is evidence that the landlord considered the evidence that it obtained from the witnesses, there is no evidence that the landlord spoke to the resident before it issued the warning letter to the resident in July 2021 regarding the incident in the bin store. This was not reasonable as on more than one occasion, the resident contacted the landlord to deny that he was the perpetuator of the ASB and to request that the landlord give him an opportunity to provide his version of events.
However, the landlord did speak to the resident about the incident in the bin store during the complaint process. This is in line with its complaints procedure and the Complaint Handling Code, which expects landlords to allow residents to have an opportunity to set out their position and comment on any adverse findings before a decision is made.
The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns following the issue of the warning letter in July 2021 and whether it acted reasonably in the circumstances of the case. From what can be seen, the landlord acted reasonably once it had spoken with the resident. It considered all the information it had received and confirmed its position in its final complaint response, that the warning letter would not be retracted.
Whilst, the resident is clearly unhappy with the landlord’s decision, it must be borne in mind that the landlord must be guided by the information it received. Based on the available facts, the landlord’s approach was appropriate and it has maintained a consistent approach explaining why the warning letter was issued.
The landlord acted appropriately when it received reports from residents that the resident had made contact to request that they sign a petition about the HSM. In this particular case, the landlord spoke to the resident who denied that he had started the petition or had knocked on his neighbour’s door. He advised that the letter had been posted through his door and that the petition had been started by another resident.
Furthermore, the landlord in its decision making balanced the information it had received from other residents, against the denial made by the resident. Also, it considered that it had not received from the resident the identity of the person who he alleged had started the petition.
In its complaint responses, the landlord confirmed its position that the warning letter issued in August 2021 would not be withdrawn as it was satisfied that the resident was the person who had started the petition regarding the HSM. The landlord has demonstrated that it acted reasonably as while it accepts petitions from residents if they were unhappy with its delivery of service, in this particular case, it acted to address concerns raised by residents about the organisation of the petition. Furthermore, they had a responsibility towards its member of staff and with this in mind, they restricted contact between the home service manager and the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Reasons

The landlord did not act in accordance with its ASB and hate crime policy when it issued a warning letter to the resident regarding the incident in June 2021. It failed to give him or consider his side of the story before it issued the warning letter to the resident, despite his attempts to do so.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should write to resident to apologise for service failures identified in this report.
The landlord should pay the resident £50 for the distress and inconvenience experienced.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.