Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Stonewater Limited (202206658)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206658

Stonewater Limited

26 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 Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of an antisocial behaviour (ASB) allegation against the resident.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a flat in a building, with access to internal and external shared communal areas.
  2. The resident raised concerns with the landlord in June 2022 that he had been wrongly accused of having a party, causing noise disturbance and ASB, in the communal lounge area of the building on 8 June 2022.
  3. The resident then further expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord from 20 to 30 June 2022, disputing his involvement in the noise disturbance and ASB, and stating that he was unhappy with the service that he had received from its community and service managers. He felt that it and its staff were making incorrect accusations about him having a “party” within the communal areas, and that the service manager was rude and had “harassed” him. The resident also raised concerns that he believed that the landlord’s staff had told other tenants to “lie” that the noise disturbance and ASB took place, and he wished to know who had made the ASB report about him and details of this.
  4. The landlord subsequently investigated the ASB incident by speaking to the resident, its staff and other residents, and it apologised to him that his initial concerns were not passed to its investigating manager at the time that he had raised these. However, it found that its staff had denied being rude or used the term “party” in relation to him, and that several reports of noise disturbances about him and a group of people including visitors were received from other residents on multiple occasions, including on 8 June 2022. The landlord therefore placed notices, posters and digital communications around the housing scheme to remind residents to be aware of noise in communal areas from 9pm to 8am, informing the resident of this and agreeing to discuss its staff’s attitude with them on 1 July 2022.
  5. The resident then made a stage one complaint to the landlord on 2 July 2022, in which he complained that its service manager had wrongly accused him of ASB during a call on 20 June 2022, when he reported that they had shouted at him and stated that he had breached his tenancy agreement. He added that he considered that this had been done by the service manager, and by other residents who they had “encouraged to lie” about the ASB, in order to make him leave the housing scheme.
  6. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 2 August 2022. It apologised for its staff’s abrupt behaviour and stated that it had conducted a thorough investigation into the reports of the noise disturbances raised. It explained that it had a duty to investigate all reports of any disturbances or ASB brought to it, and apologised for the delay in its response, which it attributed to the investigation. The landlord highlighted that it would look to place notices around the building, as well as release a newsletter article reminding all tenants to be respectful while using the communal spaces within the building.
  7. The resident informed the landlord on 8 and 9 August 2022 that he remained dissatisfied with its response, as he still wanted to know who had raised the allegations of the ASB about him, details of this, and for them to apologise to him for doing so. He also expressed his dissatisfaction over its complaint handling delays, and that he felt that he was being “bullied” by other residents “trying to get him evicted” and wanted them to stop, with it having “brushed it under the carpet”. The landlord subsequently acknowledged this as a final stage complaint from the resident on 25 August 2022.
  8. The landlord then issued its final stage complaint response on 7 September 2022. It upheld the stage one complaint response, informing the resident that no further action would be taken, as there was insufficient evidence to support that the reported noise disturbance and ASB took place. The landlord further identified staff training needs regarding its communication with the resident, apologising for any distress from their abruptness and an incorrect date, and explaining that it would deal with this via a formal meeting and training for its staff, including on how to deal with low level ASB sensitively.
  9. The landlord also apologised to the resident for the delays in its complaint responses, acknowledging that its calls had not met his expectations and that it was slow to escalate his complaint, which fell below its standards, so that it offered him £150 compensation to put this right. Although it confirmed that it could not disclose the other residents who had made the ASB allegations about him, or instruct them to apologise for doing so. Lastly, the landlord informed the resident that it was concerned at his reports that he was being bullied by other residents, and it agreed to investigate and take action for this under if he gave it details.
  10. The resident nevertheless still remained dissatisfied with this response and complained to this Service that he felt that the landlord had wrongly accused him of having a “party”, and that he had been “abused and harassed” by its staff, who he sought to be dismissed. He also felt that it was “hiding” behind its data protection obligations by refusing to disclose who had reported ASB from him, and he felt that this was affecting its duty to consider his vulnerabilities as an older person. The landlord additionally informed him on 21 September 2022 of subsequent concerns raised by other residents about him approaching them regarding the ASB incident, which it asked him not to do but to contact it directly.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has explained that he seeks the dismissal of the landlord’s staff who handled the ASB incident to resolve his complaint. However, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service cannot consider complaints concerning the terms of employment or other personnel issues of staff. Therefore, the scope of this investigation is limited to considering the actions or omissions made by or on behalf of the landlord, and not by its staff acting in an individual capacity or concerning their terms of employment or other personnel issues.
  2. Moreover, complaints concerning the landlord’s handling of personal data, including the identity of other residents, are also not something that this Service can consider. This is because, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body, and complaints concerning the handling of personal data fall properly under the Information Commissioner’s Office’s jurisdiction.
  3. Therefore, this issue is additionally outside the scope of this investigation, together with consideration of the resident’s subsequent correspondence from the landlord of 21 September 2022 about concerns regarding him approaching other residents. This is because, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service is unable to consider complaints made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, and there is no evidence that a complaint from him about this correspondence has done so yet. This is because the landlord needs to be given the chance to investigate and formally respond to him about this under the complaints procedure.

Policies and procedures

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy, it defines ASB as including conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person. It seeks to record and monitor cases of ASB, provide appropriate training to staff, and make direct contact with the alleged perpetrator. The landlord will emphasise resolving ASB issues while keeping residents in their homes, proactively maximising the opportunity to gather evidence, including from its residents and staff.
  2. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. According to its complaints, compliments and comments policy, it aims to respond to all stage one and final stage complaints within ten working days. Where an extension is required, this will be agreed with the resident and will usually not exceed a further ten working days. The landlord’s compensation policy gives it discretion to recognise failures in its service that do not meet the standards outlined in its policies and procedures with financial compensation.

The landlord’s handling of an ASB allegation against the resident

  1. The landlord responded to the reports that it received from other residents in June 2022 about the resident, and a group of people including visitors, being involved in a noise disturbance and ASB in his building’s communal lounge on 8 June 2022 by investigating this in accordance with its ASB policy. It did so by speaking to him, other residents and its staff about the reported ASB. While the resident disputed that the ASB took place, it was a fair and reasonable response for the landlord to investigate this in line with its ASB policy obligations, as it had a responsibility to do so, including by directly contacting him as the alleged perpetrator, and gathering evidence from its other residents and staff.
  2. As the investigation by the landlord was unable to find conclusive evidence that the reported ASB took place, or that the resident was involved in the incident, it followed its ASB policy to take steps to resolve this. It did so by placing notices, posters and digital communications around his building to remind residents to be aware of noise in communal areas from 9pm to 8am. This was a fair and proportionate response, particularly given the lack of evidence regarding the resident’s involvement in the incident, as the landlord instead used measures addressed to all residents to try and prevent future noise disturbances in communal areas.
  3. As part of his complaint, the resident raised concerns with the landlord’s staff’s communication with him regarding the alleged noise disturbance and ASB. He said that he felt wrongly accused of the incident, and of breaching his tenancy. While its records could not confirm that exactly what was said took place between the resident and the landlord’s staff during their telephone calls, it was reasonable that the landlord investigated his concerns and addressed these in accordance with its ASB policy.
  4. The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns appropriately by speaking to and considering written submissions from him and his staff regarding the way that they had spoken to him. While its staff denied details of the language that he had reported that they had used towards him, it ultimately agreed that the way in which its staff had behaved towards him had been abrupt. The landlord therefore apologised to the resident for this in its complaint responses, and looked to remedy this through staff meetings and training on handling low level ASB sensitively, seeking to put matters right and learn from the outcome of his complaint. This was suitable and in line with its ASB policy and this Service’s dispute resolution principles to do so.
  5. Furthermore, as part of its final stage complaint response, the landlord followed up the resident’s reports that he was being bullied by other residents through its ASB policy, by agreeing to investigate and take action for this if he provided it with details. This was a reasonable response, and in accordance with the policy, as it was obliged to investigate his reports of ASB about other residents too, and so it has been recommended below to contact him to re-offer this.
  6. While this Service acknowledges that the resident’s experiences would have been distressing for him, the landlord’s actions to investigate the ASB reports about him and put right the issues that it identified were nevertheless reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. Based on the evidence provided to this Service, this was in line with its ASB policy and our dispute resolution principles. The landlord provided the resident with comprehensive explanations of its position, and given the findings above, there were no failings in its handling of the matter.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident raised a stage one complaint on 2 July 2022, and the landlord issued its stage one response on 2 August 2022, 11 working days later than its complaints, compliments and comments policy’s ten-working-day stage one response timescale. Furthermore, he escalated his complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure from 8 August 2022, and it issued its final stage complaint response on 7 September 2022, 11 working days later than its policy’s final stage response timescale.
  2. This resulted in the resident facing an unreasonably lengthy and unexplained complaint handling delay of 22 working days in total, leading to him experiencing unnecessary time and trouble to obtain a response throughout his complaint. Where a delay is inevitable, in accordance with the landlord’s complaints, compliments and comments policy, it is required to contact him to agree an extension that will not usually exceed a further ten working days. However, there is no evidence that it did so in this case, which was unsuitable.
  3. Where failings are identified, it is the role of this Service to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord has put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. This is in accordance with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, and with its compensation policy. The landlord looked to put matters right by offering the resident an apology for its late replies as part of its final stage complaint response, identifying its complaint handling delays, and offering him £150 compensation for these delays, and for the distress and inconvenience and the time and trouble that he spent pursuing his complaints.
  4. Furthermore, the landlord showed some learning from the complaint, acknowledging in its final stage complaint response that its communication with the resident did not meet its service standards and, as a result, that it would conduct staff training in respect of its communication failings. This, and the above compensation offer for its identified complaint handling delays, was fair and proportionate to recognise its failings and his distress, inconvenience, time and trouble spent pursuing the complaint.
  5. The landlord therefore satisfactorily resolved the resident’s complaint in respect of its complaint handling. This is because it exercised the discretion available to it under its compensation policy to do so with the above actions, including its offer of £150 compensation to him, which accorded with this Service’s remedies guidance’s recommendation of compensation of over £100 for failures that adversely affected the resident. As a consequence, the landlord has been recommended below to re-offer the resident the compensation that it previously awarded him, if he has not received this already.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of an ASB allegation against the resident.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its complaint handling satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Contact the resident to re-invite him to provide it with details for it to investigate and take action for his reports of being bullied by other residents.
    2. Re-offer the resident the £150 compensation that it previously awarded him, if he has not received this already.