Sovereign Network Homes (202124797)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124797

Network Homes Limited

4 October 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. record keeping;
2. handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), drug use, and noise nuisance;
3. handling of the resident’s associated complaint;
4. response to the resident’s concerns about it labelling her as a habitual complainer and other associated language.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy that began on 4 February 2011. The property is a two bedroom first floor flat. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident’s reports of ASB to the landlord mainly concerned the tenant who the resident said had lived in the landlord’s flat below hers since 2016. For the purposes of this report the tenant of the flat below the resident is referred to as ‘the neighbour’.

ASB policy

The landlord’s policy quoted the Crime and Policing Act 2014 definition of ASB, and provided a list of examples including noise nuisance, communal nuisance, neighbour disputes, and drug abuse.
The policy stated its aims that included defining ASB so that it was clear to staff and residents what it is, and managing expectations.
The policy described the landlord’s victim centred approach to the management of ASB. It further described its approach as recognising the benefits of partnership working, and that it would address ASB via local partnerships and multi-agency working, signposting and referring residents where appropriate.
It said that it would aim to make evidence gathering as straightforward as possible for victims of ASB.
It stated that it would formulate an action plan with the person reporting ASB at the earliest opportunity, and be clear and realistic about potential outcomes and timescales.

Complaints policy

The landlord’s policy stated that it operated a two stage process, with 90% of complaints responded to within 10 and 20 working days, at stages one and two respectively.
It listed the circumstances in which it may not consider a complaint, that included where a resident had not made their complaint within six months of the issues occurring.
It explained that stage one complaints would be investigated by a member of staff with suitable training and competence. It stated that the investigation must not be carried out by a member of staff who is the subject of the complaint. It further stated that it would not ask an officer to investigate a complaint where they have been personally involved in the concerns raised.

Habitual complaints policy

The landlord’s policy said that it recognised that, “there is a clear distinction between a customer who makes a number of complaints because they genuinely believe that a service failure has taken place, and a customer whose behaviour is unreasonable”. It said that it had developed the policy to deal with a small number of very difficult cases.
It stated that complaints would be dealt with in line with its complaint policy, and that its habitual complaints policy would only be used as a last resort, and after all reasonable measures had been taken to resolve a complaint via its complaints procedure.
It explained the arrangements in place to monitor the landlord’s complaint performance that would include, “feedback on anyone put forward (for consideration) to be placed on the Habitual Complainants register”.
It listed 14 criteria where a complainant may be considered to be “habitual”. The majority of the 14 criteria either concerned the means or persistence with which a resident pursued their complaint, or abusive or similarly unreasonable behaviour.
One of the 14 criteria concerned residents who made an excessive number of contacts with the landlord, placing unreasonable demands on staff.

Scope

The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 12 September 2021. She stated that she had been reporting ASB to the landlord since 2016, but that her complaint focused more on events since 2019.
The landlord provided this Service with a spreadsheet detailing 368 of the resident’s reports of ASB and related matters, between January 2019 and the time of her complaint. The entries on the spreadsheet were written from the first person perspective of the resident.
The main contemporaneous evidence of the landlord’s actions provided by the landlord to this Service, began in July 2021. As such, the timeline of events detailed below begins from this time. This has been further considered in the record keeping assessment below.
Multiple agencies were involved in the resident’s case, including the local authority who played an active role. The actions of the local authority in this case are within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. As such the local authority’s actions do not form part of the Housing Ombudsman’s assessment, but are referred to in this report for the purpose of context.
The resident’s complaint also made reference to the landlord’s handling of her Subject Access Request (SAR), and the nature of some of the landlord’s communications that it revealed. Complaints concerning an organisation’s handling of personal data or responses to requests for information are the responsibility of the Information Commissioner’s Office. As such the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s communications revealed by the SAR, but not the handling of the SAR itself.

Summary of events

On 6 July 2021 the landlord emailed the resident’s father (RF) to arrange a meeting with him and the resident, that would also include a representative from the local authority (LA). The meeting was agreed for 14 July 2021.
On 16 July 2021 the LA emailed the resident, RF and landlord further to the meeting two days earlier. Attached to the email were summary notes of the meeting, and a proposed nine point action plan it said had been drawn up by the LA and landlord. The email noted that some of the proposed actions were already happening. It asked that the resident review the plan and reply with any responses or further actions that she wished to be considered. The action plan included the following:
1. A joint unannounced visit to the neighbour by the LA and landlord.
2. Continued liaison with the Police.
3. Liaison and referral to other named relevant agencies, including environmental health (EH).
4. Provision of noise recording equipment by the landlord if EH were unable to assist.
5. A communication matrix that would allow for regular contact with the resident at an agreed frequency.
On 21 July 2021 the RF replied to the LA, and copied in the landlord and resident. He noted that he had added an additional proposed action to the plan that regarding consideration being given to a management move for the resident. He expressed his concerns that the resident was trapped in a vicious circle, whereby the Police would not attend for domestic drug use, and the landlord was ‘stepping away’ from the daily ASB issues and advising the resident that incidents needed to be reported to the Police. He stated that the resident felt unsupported and in fear of reprisals if she made further reports.
On 29 July 2021 the LA responded to the RF and resident, and explained that its response had been jointly compiled with the landlord, with additional advice sought from the Police. It advised that an additional column had been added to the action plan to provide timescales and other notes. It stated that the Police had advised that they had responded to the resident’s reports, but had no evidence to corroborate them, and the landlord’s visit to the neighbour had also gained no evidence. It advised of another agency who it hoped would be able to assist with the capture of evidence. It said that the landlord had supported the resident by referring her to the ‘safeguarding panel’ and other support agencies.
On 8 August 2021 the RF replied to the LA, and copied in the landlord and resident. He stated that the landlord was using ‘lack of evidence’ as a barrier, and reiterated the ‘catch 22’ situation that the resident was in. He attached a summary of incidents that had occurred with the neighbour since 14 July 2021 compiled by the resident. The summary included a visit from the Police to the resident on 1 August 2021, that she believed resulted from a malicious report by the neighbour. It noted that the neighbour had been away from her home since that time.
On 11 August 2021 the LA replied to the RF and copied in the landlord and resident. It provided details of its contact with the resident from earlier that day, that it said was part of the fortnightly contact with her that was agreed as part of the action plan.
On 15 August 2021 the RF replied to the LA, and copied in the landlord and resident. He emphasised the strain that was on the resident, the need for him to act on her behalf, and the lack of support she had received from the agencies involved.
On 17 August 2021 the LA replied to the RF and copied in the landlord and resident. It stated that the purpose of the action plan was to provide clarity and an agreed way forward. It expressed a wish for all involved to collectively work together, and hoped that this reassured the resident that agencies were making efforts to address her reports. It confirmed that the fortnightly updates would be made by the landlord rather than the LA, as it would be more informed about the actions.
On 24 August 2021 the RF replied to the LA email, and thanked it for the clarity it had provided. He stated that the neighbour had returned from a period away from her property on 14 August 2021, and that there had been noise disturbance from the garden below into the early hours of the next morning. He said that he and the resident were compiling an incident log, and had already listed 11 incidents of ASB or criminal behaviour during June and July 2021. He stated that the resident had made reports to the Police to which they had attended three times, but did not attend twice. He described this as the “tip of the iceberg”.
On 1 September 2021 the RF emailed the landlord and asked that the planned installation of noise recording equipment in the resident’s property be postponed. He said that it would serve no purpose as the neighbour had been away from her property for a number of weeks. He suggested that it could be installed once the neighbour returned. The landlord replied the same day and agreed with the RF suggestion. It advised it had three emails from the resident that would be presented as part of the safeguarding panel meeting to be held the following day.
On 6 September 2021 the landlord emailed the resident and RF to advise the outcome of the safeguarding panel’s consideration of the proposal to award additional ‘social points’ to the resident. The key points of the landlord’s email were as follows:
1. It said that the panel had concluded that the resident’s rent account needed to be cleared, and that she should consider moving from the village.
2. It advised that the next meeting was 7 October 2021 and that the panel would then reconsider awarding social points subject to the above.
3. It stated that the panel had acknowledged that the resident wished to remain in the village, but that it would be remiss for it to award social points specifically to bid on properties in the village only, as that was the area where the resident had reported ASB.
On 8 September 2021 the RF replied to the landlord’s email and queried the safeguarding panel’s composition, remit, policies, procedures, and record keeping. The landlord replied and advised that the queries had been passed to the Chair of the panel, who was on leave but would respond by 15 September 2021.
On 12 September 2021 the resident sent her letter of complaint to the landlord. The letter went into significant detail and appended sections of the landlord’s ASB policy, tables of her reports to the landlord over the previous three years, and other documents that the resident referred to. The key points of the resident’s letter were as follows:
1. She referred to the Subject Access Request (SAR) that she had made to the landlord in July 2021, and her belief that the records she had been provided were incomplete.
2. She explained that her reports of ASB dated back to 2016 when her neighbour had moved in, but that she was focusing mainly on records from 2019 onwards.
3. She stated that there had been long term consistent illegal drug use by the previous and current neighbour, that she had reported at least 23 times since 2019. She said that the smell of cannabis and crack cocaine would enter her property, and her family had experienced disruption from the neighbour’s “nocturnal lifestyle”.
4. She explained that she had been in an impossible position, whereby the Police would not attend for reports of drug use, and the landlord would not act without the evidence provided by a Police attendance.
5. She stated that drug use was a criminal offence, and the smell of drugs in her home was the evidence. She said that as neither the Police or landlord would attend when drugs were in use, her case was dismissed as having ‘no evidence’, and the landlord refused to act. She stated that this “vicious circle” had caused her significant anxiety.
6. She said that she had reported incidents of noise to the landlord at least 40 times since 2019. She described the impact that she said this had on her family. She disputed the landlord’s claim that the noise did not constitute statutory noise nuisance.
7. She said that she had made at least 237 reports of ASB since 2019, that the landlord had failed to deal with in line with its policy. She stated that ASB incidents had been dealt with “piecemeal”, and that cases were quickly closed down without her being informed of actions.
8. She stated that when the landlord had served the neighbour a community protection warning (CPW) on 1 April 2020, it had also inappropriately served her with one. She said that for the year the CPW was in place, she had reported her neighbour’s breaches of it at least 39 times to the landlord without action being taken.
9. She said that she had reported overcrowding in the neighbour’s property in 2019, that had worsened the noise and ASB. She stated that this had remained the case until April 2021, and that the landlord had been aware but failed to act.
10. She stated that since 2019 she had made at least 62 reports to the landlord of the neighbour’s unhygienic rubbish disposal and related vermin issues, but that the landlord had failed to act.
11. She said that the documents released by her SAR had shown that the landlord had inappropriately labelled her as a ‘serial complainer’. She stated that a high volume of her contacts were as a result of the landlord’s inaction or unwarranted delays.
12. She described the landlord’s labelling of her as a “habitual complainer” and “mentally unwell” as a “very convenient approach for them”. She stated that she was deeply connected to her community, and listed the range of community roles that she had undertaken.
13. She stated that the landlord would often refer her to other agencies, rather than deal with the ASB itself. She provided details of a number of agencies who had had involvement in her case.
14. She listed the outcomes she was seeking from her complaint. The main requests were as follows:
  1. A written apology placed on file for the landlord’s stigmatising language used about her, and its issuance of a CPW to her.
  2. A written acknowledgement that the landlord had failed to handle her reports of ASB in line with its policy.
  3. The landlord to install CCTV at the block, and reestablish community initiatives and neighbourhood officer surgeries.
  4. Provide her access to an approved ‘noise app’.
On 16 September 2021 the RF emailed the landlord to highlight that the date that it had advised that it would respond to his safeguarding panel queries had passed. The landlord responded the following days with its answers to the RF’s queries.
On 20 September 2021 the landlord called the resident to discuss her complaint, and advise who would be involved in its investigation. The landlord’s call notes stated that the resident wished for a property suitable for her family within the local area. The notes said that the landlord confirmed the outcome of the safe guarding panel, and the need for the resident to clear her rent account. It stated that the resident requested all contact to be via email.
On 25 September 2021 the resident emailed the landlord further to the telephone discussion on 20 September 2021, and raised the following additional points:
1. She stated that the landlord’s senior manager who was investigating her complaint, along with the two officers supporting her, had had previous involvement in her ASB case. She said that as such, the landlord was in breach of its complaint policy and that she wished to escalate her complaint to stage two on that basis alone.
2. She said that her email to the landlord on 16 September 2021 had pointed out that her complaint also needed to include the landlords failure to respond in reasonable timeframes. She stated that this failure made it necessary for her to recontact the landlord, and had added to the perception that she was a ‘serial complainer’.
3. She stated her belief that the landlord had not correctly followed its complaint policy from the outset and that this had contributed to the delay she was now experiencing in receiving a response.
On 26 September 2021 the RF replied to the landlord’s email that had responded to his safeguarding panel queries. He explained in detail why the information the landlord had provided had not answered his queries, and asked that it did so.
On 28 September 2021 the landlord sent its stage one complaint response to the resident, that it said was further to its telephone discussion with her on 20 September 2021. It noted that the Covid-19 restrictions had significantly increased ASB reports, exasperated matters for those experiencing ASB, closed the courts, and limited the actions landlords could take. The key points of the landlord’s stage one response were as follows:
1. It acknowledged that the resident had contacted it frequently concerning noise nuisance and the use of cannabis by her existing and previous neighbours. It apologised for its lack of timely responses in 2019, but stated that it had tried to offer support and listed a range of interventions and actions that it said that it had taken, including issuing the neighbour a CPW.
2. It stated that it had made unannounced visits to the neighbour and spoken with other tenants of the block, but none had reported any issues with the neighbour, and it had not established any evidence of ASB. It said it had been clear with the resident about the reasons why it was limited with its actions against the neighbour’s tenancy.
3. It explained in these cases it would seek validation from the environmental health (EH) team regarding statutory noise. It noted the wide range of noise issues the resident had reported, and its advice to her that many would be considered everyday noise. It said that it had used mediation and a professional witness service, but had not gained any evidence. It said that it had engaged with EH regarding the installation of sound monitoring equipment, and was pleased that this had just been agreed. It advised it would also soon be undertaking a trial of a Noise App.
4. It stated that much of what the resident had described was everyday family life, and that there was evidence of a clash of lifestyles. It said that it had completed a safeguarding review and was supporting the resident with the potential to move.
5. It said that it disagreed that it had handled the resident’s reports ‘piecemeal’, or that it had not followed its policies. It said that it agreed that its communication and record keeping could have been better. It explained that it had recently completed refresher ASB policy training, and had introduced real time ASB case performance monitoring.
6. It said that it had been 18 months since the resident was issued the CPW, and that this was outside of the timeframes of its complaint policy. It said that it was however satisfied that the issuing of a CPW to both parties was proportionate given the levels of complaints made by the resident, and the counter complaints about her from others.
7. It said that it had concerns over the volume of contact it received from the resident, but accepted that it should “perhaps” not have referred to her as a “habitual complainant” in its past comments. It agreed that some of the remarks in recorded notes revealed by her SAR were inappropriate or unprofessional. It said that it would send a separate written apology for this by 8 October 2021, that it would place on file.
8. It asked that the resident be mindful of the volume of contact it received from her, that it said it considered to be disproportionate. It said that it would monitor this over the next six weeks, and may look to invoked its ‘habitual complainants policy’ and place the resident on its associated register.
9. It acknowledged the resident’s comments regarding being in a ‘catch-22’ situation with providing evidence. It stated that despite its significant efforts, and the resident’s very frequent allegations, “when visits were undertaken there was never an occasion to witness”. It stated that this did not infer that the resident’s reports were not valid.
10. It said that with regards to the resident’s comments concerning referrals made to other services, that this was in line with its policy and formed a core part of its approach. It accepted that some external services could not always engage to the extent that people would wish.
11. It concluded that its actions had been reasonable overall given the limitations of the pandemic. It noted the endeavours of the resident to support its efforts, and the engagement of the neighbour when requests had been made of her. It offered to further discuss the matter with the resident if she wished to, and advised how she could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
12. In respect of the resident’s requested outcomes, it stated as follows:
  1. It advised that the threshold for a CCTV installation was “high level ASB” that the current reported issues were unlikely to meet. It said it would reconsider this when appropriate to.
  2. It thanked the resident for highlighting the importance of it reinstating its community and resident engagement initiatives, and advised of its upcoming plans.
  3. It advised of its ongoing customer focused culture efforts, and improved record keeping methods, and what it had been doing to achieve this.
On 30 September 2021 the RF emailed the landlord to chase an answer to his previous safeguarding panel queries. He highlighted that this was the eighth email attempting to get this information. He stated that the resident’s complaint had highlighted the landlord’s, “habitual inability to respond in a timely fashion to even routine requests”. He said that this had meant that the resident had needed to excessively chase issues over the years, far more than should be necessary. He said that the landlord had used this as an excuse to dismiss, and at times ridicule her, and formally label her as a “habitual complainer”.
On 30 September 2021 the RF emailed the landlord and requested a copy or link to the landlord’s habitual complaints policy, which the landlord provided him on 1 October 2021.
On 1 October 2021 the landlord responded to the RF queries regarding the safeguarding panel. It highlighted that its service standard was a five working day response time, and that persistent chasing detracted from its ability to respond comprehensively. It further clarified that the resident’s request for a management move had been deferred but not declined. It said that as the resident had reduced her rent arrears, the safeguarding panel had recommended to the LA that she be awarded additional social points, that would put her in a strong position to bid for properties.
On 6 October 2021 the landlord sent its separate formal letter of apology to the resident regarding the inappropriate comments of some of its officers, that had come to light as result of the resident’s SAR. It detailed the learning and actions it had taken from this regarding internal communications, and providing clearer external communications about what constitutes ASB.
On 7 October 2021 the RF emailed the landlord and requested that the resident’s complaint be escalated to stage two. The RF explained that the resident felt that a number of her concerns had not been addressed. The email further stated that the landlord’s separate apology letter had been contradictory and not in the spirit of a sincere apology, and as such the resident did not accept it. The landlord acknowledged the RF’s email the same day.
On 18 October 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord to provide the details of her escalated complaint (the letter was dated 18 September 2021, but as it referred to events after that date this is assumed to have been a typographical error). The key points of the resident’s stage two complaint escalation were as follows:
1. She repeated her point that it was inappropriate for the senior manager who had responded to her at stage one to have investigated her complaint. She said that the senior manager was the next tier of management involved in her case, and the head of the safeguarding panel.
2. She said that the landlord had not addressed her points regarding repeated drug use. She reiterated that she felt that the landlord had not handled the matter in line with its own policy. She noted that the landlords expressed, ‘sympathy for her frustration’, was an acceptance that things were occurring to be frustrated about. She stated that the landlord’s stage one response had sought to minimise the drug use in various ways, including omitting any reference to crack cocaine.
3. She stated that the stage one response had not properly addressed her complaint concerning the landlord’s failure to effectively deal with her reports of noise nuisance. She explained the delays that had occurred in arranging sound monitoring equipment, and that the landlord’s response had focused on very early case history, rather than her current complaint. She strongly disputed the landlord’s description of a “clash of lifestyles”.
4. She said that the stage one response had not appropriately addressed her complaint concerning the landlord’s failure to effectively deal with her reports of ASB. She stated that the landlord had again failed to follow its own procedures, or addressed the substance of her complaint. She reiterated that she had made at least 237 reports of ASB since 2019.
5. She stated that the stage one response had not properly addressed her complaint concerning the landlord’s failure to effectively deal with her reports of overcrowding. She said that the overcrowding had not been reduced until April 2021, and her complaint had been about the speed and effectiveness of the landlord’s response.
6. She restated her comments regarding being inappropriately labelled as a “serial complainer”, which she said had led to a long term minimising of her situation. She said that the landlord’s response had ignored the reasons given for why she had needed to make such a high volume of reports, and that she felt that the landlord was now threatening her as a result. She cited the landlords use of the word “perhaps” in its statement that it should not have made the comments, as evidence of its behaviours and attitudes that had led to her complaint.
7. She said that the landlord was in the habit of confusing “complaining” with “reporting”, which had contributed towards her being mislabelled a ‘serial complainer’. She stated that all tenants should be able to report incidents of ASB and be able to discuss them with an appropriate officer. She said that she had only ever made one previous complaint. She said she that the landlord’s threats now left her anxious about reporting anything, including unrelated matters she was dealing with such as rent.
8. She said that the landlord had failed to address her complaint concerning its inappropriate referral of her to external services. She said that the landlord had used this as a mean of making it appear that it was doing something when it was not.
9. She stated that although the CPW had been issued to her on 1 April 2020, it was discriminatory for the landlord to state that it was outside of the timeframe of its complaint policy, as it had not expired until 1 April 2021. She reiterated her belief that the CPW was inappropriately issued.
10. She restated the outcomes that she had requested at stage one.
11. She said that since her complaint she had been awarded extra ‘social points’. She stated that the letter that had advised her of this had said she was expected to, “move out of the area of immediate risk” and that the points would be removed if she failed to bid on properties. She said that she had not been advised what ‘the area of immediate risk’ was, but that it implied that she was being forced from the local area.
On 30 October 2021 the landlord replied to the additional points raised by the resident in her email sent on 25 September 2021. The email was from the senior manager who had completed the stage one complaint investigation, and noted the resident’s concerns that she had been previously involved in the case and as such should not be involved in the complaint. The email explained that the relevant section of its complaint policy was not applicable, as the senior manager had not been directly involved in the resident’s case and the resident’s complaint was not about the senior manager specifically.
On 15 November 2021 the landlord sent its stage two complaint response to the resident. The main points were as follows:
1. It stated that the resident’s concerns regarding the senior manager investigating her complaint at stage one were understandable, but that her complaint regarded departmental inaction, and not the actions of any individual. It took this as a learning point to consider at its next complaint policy review.
2. It said that the resident had taken comments from its stage one response out of context. It clarified that where it had expressed sympathy with the resident’s frustrations, this was not intended as an acceptance of liability.
3. It apologised that its stage one response did not specifically mention the resident’s reports of crack cocaine usage. It said that the response had though detailed the actions it had taken in response to the resident’s reports of drug use, and reiterated that it had found no evidence to support what the resident had said, nor any other resident of the block reporting similar issues.
4. It advised that data protection and privacy, meant that it was limited in what it could tell the resident about its actions concerning her reports of the neighbour’s overcrowding. It disputed that it had failed to deal with the issue, but accepted that it had not been resolved as quickly as the resident would have wished.
5. It stated that the use of the phrase ‘serial complainer’ was not appropriate, as it used the term ‘habitual complainer, in line with its ‘habitual complaints policy’. It said that it took all reports seriously and did not want to discourage residents from making reports, but that the resident’s reports had been extensive with the potential to impact on services to other residents. It stated that as the neighbour no longer appeared to live at her property, it was hopeful that matters would improve for the resident.
6. It confirmed that the resident’s complaint regarding her being served a CPW did fall out of the timeframes of its complaints policy, that it said was in line with Ombudsman guidance. It said that in the interests of completeness it would explain why a CPW can be seen as the best way forward, which it provided a general explanation of.
7. It explained that the resident’s case was under constant review and that the local authority had awarded her additional ‘social points’. It said that it was true that the points could be withdrawn if the resident did not bid on properties, but that she was under no obligation at all to do so.
8. It accepted that the resident had found it extremely frustrating to make so many reports over several years, but for it to not have taken the actions she would have wished. It also accepted that it had not always responded to the resident as quickly as it would aim to. It concluded that it was a challenging situation in the absence of evidence, but assured it would continue to take account of the reports the resident made.
9. It offered its formal apology for some of the language used in the internal emails revealed by the resident’s SAR. It stated that the matter had been escalated to a senior level to issue reminders about standards moving forward.
10. It referred the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
The landlord has confirmed that the neighbour’s tenancy formally ended on 13 November 2022, but that her property was unoccupied by the time its formal complaint process had concluded.

Assessment and findings

Record keeping

This Service asked the landlord to provide various records relevant to the resident’s reports of ASB and its actions. The landlord’s response stated that, given the volume of contacts it had received from the resident, it had provided its records in the spreadsheet format referred to in the ‘scope’ above. It said that other records were available if needed.
The spreadsheet appeared to represent the resident’s, rather than the landlord’s record, as the entries were written from her first person perspective. The landlord had added a ‘notes’ column to the spreadsheet. However it was not clear when the notes had been added, or in some cases what they referred to, and the majority of entries on the spreadsheet had no corresponding notes.
This Service contacted the landlord and advised that it was not clear what the spreadsheet was intended to represent and that as such, the only evidence it had provided to date that could be considered contemporaneous, was mostly from July 2021 onwards.
The landlord explained that many of the resident’s reports were made via social media, and so had been transposed onto the spreadsheet. The landlord was unable to clarify what its ‘notes’ column represented, and agreed to provide the Ombudsman with its contemporaneous ASB records for the 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint. A deadline to provide this information was agreed, and subsequently extended, but this Service did not hear further from the landlord.
Clear record keeping is a core function of ASB and wider landlord services. It allows evidence to be provided to the Ombudsman when requested. More importantly, clear record keeping is essential to enable landlords to monitor outstanding reports and issues, and provide effective services to its residents. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate and contemporaneous records including resident reports of ASB or noise, and its subsequent response, actions and rationale.
The landlord’s failure to provide appropriate records has severely hampered both the Ombudsman’s ability to investigate the resident’s complaint, and the resident’s ability to seek redress. It is of concern that the landlord has been either unwilling or unable to provide appropriate records. As such the Ombudsman has found maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping, and has made an order to this regard.

ASB handling

As explained above, the landlord’s lack of contemporaneous ASB records has severely limited the Ombudsman’s ability to investigate the substantive element of the resident’s complaint. The landlord did retrospectively detail some of its actions in its complaint responses to the resident. However with no records to corroborate these actions, the Ombudsman has been unable to assess whether they were reasonable in the circumstances or carried out in a timely manner. The landlords actions were therefore unreasonable, and the Ombudsman has found maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, drug use, and noise nuisance.
The contemporaneous records that the landlord did provide largely consisted of the email exchanges with the resident and her father in the weeks from July 2021 up to her complaint being handled between September and November 2021, and that were mainly led by the LA.
It was appropriate for the landlord to meet with the resident and her father on 14 July 2021 to compile an action plan in collaboration with the LA. It was also appropriate for the landlord to provide the action plan to the resident two days later and seek her feedback towards it. The action plan and related correspondence, demonstrated a victim centred approach and the landlord’s partnership working with multiple external agencies. All of this was in line with its policy.
Nonetheless, the resident had been reporting the issues for several years. The landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged its need for better record keeping, and that it had not always responded to the resident’s reports in a timely manner, particularly during 2019. The landlord’s complaint responses described its work with the Police and other agencies, its use of mediation and community protection warnings, and its attempts to gain evidence to support the resident’s reports. The landlord concluded that its actions had been in line with its policy and reasonable, particularly given the operational restrictions of the pandemic.
However, as explained above, the landlord’s retrospective explanations are not a substitute for contemporaneous records. The resident’s dissatisfaction was primarily with what she felt had been the ineffectiveness and “piecemeal” approach of the landlord’s actions, rather than a dispute about whether they had occurred or not. As such, whilst the landlord’s actions did not achieve the outcomes that the resident would have wished for, it may have been the case that they were in line with its policy. However in the absence of appropriate records the Ombudsman has been unable to consider this, and the landlord has therefore acted unreasonably.

Complaint handling

One element of the resident’s complaint concerned the landlord’s labelling of her as a ‘habitual complainer’, and other language from its communications that she considered inappropriate, and for which the landlord sent a separate apology letter. That element of the resident’s complaint has been separately assessed below. As such this assessment is focused on the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s complaint, excluding that element.
In assessing the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s acted in line with its policy, and with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; Be fair, Put things right and Learn from outcomes.
The landlord did not meet the complaint response timescales of its policy. Nevertheless, the landlord did explain to the resident that the length and level of detail of her complaint meant that this was likely to be the case, and it did maintain appropriate levels of contact.
It is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord handled aspects of the resident’s complaint in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. However, the landlord accepted that there had been failings in its record keeping, and the timeliness of some of its responses to the resident reports of ASB. It also accepted the lack of professionalism and inappropriateness of some of its language (considered in the assessment below).
Whilst the landlord did apologise for these failings, it would have been fair for it to offer appropriate redress as a means of demonstrating its efforts to put things right. It was also questionable whether the landlord’s decision to invoke its habitual complaints policy at stage one of its complaint process was in line with the policy. Either way, its use at stage one of the resident’s complaint did not demonstrate its commitment to put things right. As such, the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure, and made a compensation order to this regard.
The resident’s complaint included her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s decision to issue her a community protection warning (CPW) on 1 April 2020. The landlord offered a general explanation to the resident, but explained that it would not fully consider this element of her complaint as it was outside of the six month timeframe stated in its policy.
The resident disputed this point on the basis that the CPW had been in effect until 1 April 2021, which was just under six months prior to her making her complaint. The resident also queried what she considered to be the arbitrary nature of the six month timeframe in the landlord’s policy.
The landlord’s policy reflected paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, that states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”.
This timeframe is in the interests of residents in part because a complaint that is made in a timely manner, has a far greater chance of achieving an outcome that will be satisfactory to the resident. The Ombudsman also uses significant discretion and flexibility when considering our own use of the timeframe, and expects that landlords do similar. In this instance the resident’s complaint was about the landlord’s decision to issue the CPW, which had been taken around 18 months before the resident made her complaint. As such the landlord’s decision to only provide a general response to this specific issue was in line with its policy.
The resident also questioned the appropriateness of the landlord’s senior manager overseeing the stage one investigation of her complaint. This was on the basis of the senior manager’s line management of some of the staff that had been involved, and her leadership of the safeguarding panel.
The landlord stated that the resident’s concerns were understandable, and it was reasonable for it to note the need for further clarity of the relevant section of its complaint policy. This demonstrated the landlords willingness to learn from outcomes.
Landlord’s will have a limited number of staff in each service area with the necessary knowledge and expertise to deal with detailed complaints. The senior manager did chair the safeguarding panel, but had not otherwise been directly involved and the resident’s complaint was not about her specifically. Particularly given the level of detail included in the resident’s complaint, it was appropriate for the landlord to utilise its most qualified manager to undertake the stage one investigation.
The resident’s complaint referred to the landlord’s actions since 2016 but focused on the previous three years. The landlord’s complaint responses were lengthy and detailed. Whilst the resident felt that many of her points had not been addressed, the landlord’s responses were as comprehensive as would be reasonably expected. This does again highlight why it is in the interests of residents to make complaints to landlords within a reasonable timeframe of the matters arising.
The landlord accepted that its record keeping and communications needed improvement. It was reasonable for it to explain the training it had undertaken and the ASB case monitoring it had implemented. This further demonstrated the landlords willingness to learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s use of the term ‘habitual complainer’ is considered below. However its decision to invoke its habitual complaint policy at stage one of its complaint process appeared to be neither fair, nor in line with its policy. Its habitual complaints policy stated that it was to be used as a last resort, after it had attempted to resolve a complaint via its complaint process. Whilst the policy was somewhat ambiguous, the landlord’s use of it part way through its complaint process appeared premature. Along with the landlord’s failure to offer appropriate redress for its accepted failings, its use of its habitual complaints policy at stage one of the resident’s complaint meant that the landlord missed the opportunity to be fair and put things right.

‘Habitual complainant’ and inappropriate language response

The resident raised her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s labelling of her as a ‘serial’ or ‘habitual’ complainer, and the language used by some of its officers revealed by her SAR. She described the stigmatisation and distress she said it had caused her. She further described the impact that she felt that this attitude had had on the landlord’s dealings with her, and the anxiety that the landlord’s threat to put her on its ‘habitual complainants register’ had caused with regards to her reporting anything else.
The landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns were inconsistent, and appeared to demonstrate uncertainty with its own policy. Paragraph 52(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman may find maladministration where a landlord has, “treated the complainant personally in a heavy-handed, unsympathetic or inappropriate manner”. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about it labelling her as a habitual complainer, and other associated language.
The resident’s SAR revealed emails and file notes recorded by the landlord, that the resident considered to be stigmatizing and that she felt sought to minimise her reports of ASB. The landlord’s records highlighted by the resident from 2018 and 2019, referred to her reports of ASB as “minor” and “petty”. It was also during this period that the records described the resident as a “serial complainer”, and a “habitual complainant”.
The landlord’s records from the months prior to the resident making her complaint in September 2021, referred to the resident’s ASB reports as “low level stuff”. Other internal emails from this time referred to contacts received from the resident and her father in what appeared to be sarcastic or disparaging terms.
It is not disputed that the landlord’s records included inappropriate and unprofessional language. It was reasonable for the landlord’s stage one complaint response to agree to write to the resident and place on file a separate formal apology for these failings, which it did on 6 October 2021.
The landlord’s apology letter concluded by detailing some of its learning, that included how it needed to better communicate to residents what constituted ASB. The landlord would have been aware from the resident’s detailed letters and many references to its ASB policy, that she considered herself very familiar with what constituted ASB. As such, it was somewhat understandable that the resident viewed these additional comments as undermining the apology that preceded them, and refused the apology on the basis that she felt it to be insincere. Nevertheless, whilst it may have been better for the landlord to limit the letter solely to issuing the formal apology that was its purpose, it was reasonable for it to demonstrate its learning.
The landlord also attempted to explain its use of the term ‘habitual complainant’ in its complaint responses. However its explanations were inconsistent and appeared to demonstrate its own uncertainty regarding the appropriateness of the language used by its policy.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response accepted that it should “perhaps” not have referred to the resident as a habitual complainant. Whereas the landlord’s stage two response accepted that it was inappropriate to refer to the resident as a “serial complainer”, when the correct term was “habitual complainer”. Both instances would only have served to further the resident’s feelings of stigmatisation and being labelled, and the landlord’s actions were therefore unreasonable.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that a minority of residents will present behaviours that are challenging. This can take up an unreasonable amount of the landlord’s time and resource, often to the detriment of other residents. Our website provides guidance on this topic, and encourages landlords to have a policy in place to deal with such instances.
However, the Ombudsman’s guidance specifically recommends that landlord’s avoid using words in their policies and communications that, in themselves, could be deemed to be inflammatory and provoke unreasonable behaviour.
Furthermore, it is good practice for such policies to broadly cover excessive contacts and other forms of unreasonable behaviour, rather than focus more narrowly and primarily on ‘complaints’. The landlord’s 10 page policy did make one brief reference to residents who make an excessive number of contacts, which was one of its 14 criteria for identifying a “habitual complainant”. However the policy made almost 100 references to ‘complaints’ or ‘complainants’ and directly linked itself to the landlord’s complaint policy.
The resident’s email to the landlord on 18 October 2021 highlighted what she felt was the landlord’s confusion between ‘reports’ and ‘complaints’. It was understandable that having referred to the landlord’s policy, the resident queried how the landlord could label her as a habitual complainant, when her complaint was only the second that she said that she had ever made.
The resident’s SAR revealed attitudes and use of language by some of the landlord’s officers, that the landlord itself accepted were unprofessional and inappropriate. This would have been further upsetting for the resident at a time when she was already experiencing significant distress. It was understandable that the resident saw this as a minimisation of her ASB reports, that she felt was reflected in the service she received from the landlord.
It would be reasonable for the landlord to consider whether a link exists between the behaviours of some of its officers revealed by the resident’s SAR, and the language and labelling of residents that was inherent to its ‘habitual complaints policy’. The Ombudsman has made an order to this regard.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
1. record keeping;
2. handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), drug use, and noise nuisance;
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about it labelling her as a habitual complainer, and other associated language.

Reasons

It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s poor record keeping would at the very least, have been a contributory factor to the failings in its ASB handling that the resident had described. The landlord’s lack of contemporaneous records has also deprived the resident of her right to the Ombudsman’s full consideration of the substantive element of her complaint, by severely hampering the Ombudsman’s investigation. This will have added further frustration to a matter that the resident had already found distressing for a prolonged period of time.
Due to this, the Ombudsman has been unduly limited in its assessment of the landlord’s ASB handling. What contemporaneous records were provided, did appear to evidence that the landlord acting appropriately in the two months prior to the resident’s complaint. However the resident had been reporting issues for a considerable period of time that the Ombudsman has been unable to assess. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB were therefore unreasonable.
The resident’s complaint was particularly long and detailed, and the landlord did handle several aspects of it in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. However its decision to invoke its habitual complaint policy at stage one of its complaint process, and its failure to offer any redress for its accepted failings, were unreasonable. The landlord had seen in person at its meeting with the resident on 14 July 2021 how distressed she already was, and it failed to take the opportunity to demonstrate its efforts to be fair and put things right.
The resident described the anxiety and stigmatisation that the landlord’s labelling of her as a serial or habitual complainer had caused. The landlord did not dispute that the language revealed by the resident’s SAR was unprofessional and inappropriate, but appeared uncertain about the appropriateness of the language used by its policy. It would be reasonable for the landlord to consider whether a link exists between the two. Regardless, the impact on the resident was clear, and would have undermined any belief she might have had that the landlord was taking her reports of ASB seriously.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord:
1. Writes to the resident to apologise for the service failings identified in this report.
2. Pays the resident a total of £600 compensation, made up of;
  1. £250 for the impact of its record keeping failures on its ASB handling, and the resident’s ability to have her complaint investigated by the Ombudsman;
  2. £100 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failures identified in its complaint handling;
  3. £250 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failures identified in its response to the resident’s concerns about it labelling her as a habitual complainer, and other associated language.

The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

The Ombudsman orders that within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord:
1. Reviews its policy for dealing with ‘unreasonable behaviour’, and provides this Service with a copy of its findings.
2. Reviews the record keeping processes associated with its ASB policy against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report, and provides this Service with a copy of its findings.

The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within eight weeks of the date of this report.