Stonewater Limited (202229182)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229182

Stonewater Limited

29 November 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The ASB reports made about the resident.
3. The complaint.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since November 2021. The property is a 1-bedroom house within a close.
The landlord’s ASB policy states its objectives include:
1. to ensure a balance of support, prevention and enforcement is maintained within ASB management.
2. to ensure that interventions are appropriate, proportionate and evidence based.
The landlord states it understands:
1. the impact of ASB on residents and communities.
2. the importance of prevention and acting quickly to prevent issues from escalating.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will fast track serious cases such as hate crimes and serious harassment. It says that in these cases it will make contact with the complainant within 1 working day to form an action plan. All other reports are handled within the landlord’s customer service standards. These set out response times between 2 and 5 days depending on how contact is made.
The landlord states that it will record and monitor incidents of ASB to ensure residents are kept informed, and that it will agree the method and frequency of updates in a case action plan. It says it will make use of all tools available to tackle incidents of ASB.
It states that, unless the severity of the case warrants more formal action, it will initially use informal interventions. These include direct contact with alleged perpetrators and mediation. It says that where more formal action is needed it will utilise:
1. acceptable behaviour contracts.
2. civil injunctions.
3. possession action.
4. community protections notices.
The landlord states that its emphasis will be on resolving issues while keeping residents in their homes. It says it will:
1. risk assess cases to ensure it is doing everything it can to protect victims from harm.
2. refer and signpost to specialist organisations if the victim has additional needs.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it aims to provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. It says, if the response is going to take longer, it will notify the resident of a timeframe and keep them updated. It says it aims to provide a response to stage 2 complaints within 10 working days.
The complaints policy outlines that, following the stage 2 response, a resident may decide to refer the complaint to its customer complaints panel. This is optional. This panel is made up of residents of the landlord. It says that this panel will make recommendations within 5 days of a meeting.

Summary of events

Between 21 and 31 December 2021 2 of the resident’s neighbours (neighbour G and neighbour A) separately made a number of ASB reports to the landlord. These included that the resident had been verbally abusive using racist language, and had threatened harm.
On 4 January 2022 the resident made counter allegations to the landlord that neighbour A and neighbour G had been verbally abusive, using racist language, towards his visitor. The landlord noted it spoke to the resident that day and sent him an evidence gathering log to complete.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 January 2022. He set out further details of incidents with neighbour G and neighbour A. He said:
1. the situation had stemmed from a parking dispute.
2. he believed his neighbour was selling cannabis from his property.
3. his car had been blocked on 31 December 2021 and 1 January 2022 and he considered this to be harassment and intimidation.
4. he suffered with mental health issues, and the situation had caused his mental health to deteriorate.
On 10 January 2022 another neighbour reported to the landlord that the resident had threatened other residents in the close. On 12 January 2022 the landlord received a further report that the resident had threatened a resident of the close with a baseball bat on 1 January 2022, and that the matter had been reported to the police. The landlord contacted the police the following day, to query whether any action was being taken.
On 31 January 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that he had been racially abused and “pushed” by neighbour A. The landlord responded to the resident on 2 February 2022. It said:
1. the resident should report the incident to the police and assist by gathering evidence and keeping a log of future incidents.
2. if no further incidents were reported, it would not pursue his complaint.
On 11 February 2022 the landlord made further contact with the police querying what was happening about the reports from the close.
On 14 February 2022 the landlord noted it had spoken to the resident who had asked that it contact him about the ongoing ASB. He said:
1. no-one had contacted him since his report 2 weeks prior.
2. neighbour A had abused him after a parking dispute, and he had a recording of neighbour A pushing him.
3. he believed neighbour A was selling cannabis from the property.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 16 February 2022. It noted:
1. He had not reported incidents to the police as he “feared repercussions”.
2. He had been open to mediation with his neighbours but may not want to do this now due to recent physical and verbal incidents.
3. He said he had been racially abused by neighbour A.
4. He suffered from anxiety.
5. It advised him to contact the police when incidents occurred, and to let the landlord know too.
On 23 February 2022 the landlord sent an email to the resident. It asked that he send video evidence relating to the assault he had then recently reported. It said it was in the process of gathering evidence and could then consider appropriate action. It asked if the resident had reported the incident to the police. That day the landlord recorded that the resident sent video footage of “2 unknown males arguing and pushing”.
On 27 February 2022 the resident told the landlord he had not reported the incident to the police as his neighbour had threatened to stab him if he reported the assault. He said he was “worried” and asked for the landlord’s advice. The landlord responded the following day. It said:
1. Video evidence sent by the resident showed pushing with no physical fight. It asked whether there had been more than one incident.
2. It would help for the resident to report the incident to the police so it could assist in managing the ASB.
3. It was waiting for information from the police about what actions had been taken.
4. It attached an evidence gathering log for the resident to complete.
5. The resident should discuss the threats he had received with the police.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 28 February 2022 about the incident with his neighbour. He said:
1. It had occurred on 29 January 2022 and he had been “pushed with great force” and felt “very threatened and intimidated”.
2. He was verbally and racially abused at this time.
3. There was a witness to the incident.
4. He had reported other incidents to the landlord.
On 2 and 3 March 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and sent a further recording of the incident with his neighbour of 29 January 2022. The resident said this showed neighbour A repeatedly shouting at him and pushing him with force.
On 4 March 2022 the resident told the landlord that he had sought its support from the start but had received none. The resident sent another email and recording to the landlord on 7 March 2022. He said the recording showed his drive had been blocked by a neighbour, who he said was a friend of neighbour A. He said he had been racially abused and threatened when he asked them to move the car.
The landlord contacted the police on 9 March 2022. It said it was still waiting for a response to previous information requests. It said the case involved “racially aggravated behaviour” and “hate crimes” and that issues seemed to be escalating.
Also on 9 March 2022 the landlord sent an email to the resident. It said his case had been assigned to a different case handler. It said:
1. It would like to work with the resident to see how it could resolve the issues.
2. It would update the resident as often as it could.
3. It would contact him to agree an action plan.
On 11 March 2022 the resident provided the landlord with contact details for the person he said had witnessed the incident on 29 January 2022. That day the landlord noted internally that the issues between the resident, neighbour G and neighbour A seem to be primarily parking related and that it would help if this issue was resolved.
Also on 11 March 2022 the landlord:
1. contacted the witness, whose details had been provided by the resident.
2. contacted another resident who had previously reported ASB on the close.
3. requested that the landlord’s neighbourhood team undertake a parking consultation on the close to try to resolve parking issues.
On 16 March 2022 the landlord noted it spoke to another resident of the close, who said:
1. An incident had occurred on the close the previous night with the resident causing damage to neighbour A’s car, and neighbour A damaging the resident’s property.
2. they had seen the resident threaten people, threaten to smash things up and make “very racist comments”.
On 16 March 2022 the landlord sent a letter to residents of the close. It requested details of incidents occurring over the last 6 months. The same day the landlord requested information from the police.
The police responded on 17 March 2022. It outlined details of the incident on 16 March 2022. The police stated that from viewing CCTV and interviewing one of the parties:
1. The resident had been abusive and had used racist language towards another party.
2. The resident had then caused significant damage to another party’s car using items unknown.
3. The other party had then caused damage to the resident’s property.
4. The resident was still to be spoken to about the incident.
5. It considered the resident was the main perpetrator.
Also on 17 March 2022 the resident contacted the landlord about damage caused to his property by neighbour A. He said that action needed to be taken and he feared neighbour A may stab him.
On 24 March 2022 the landlord noted it spoke to a number of residents of the close, who were not known to be involved in the ASB reports. It noted it was told:
1. the resident was considered to be responsible for the issues raised on the close.
2. there were also issues with parking on the close.
Also on 24 March 2022 the landlord obtained an injunction from the court against the resident, setting out conditions to prevent him engaging in ASB on the close. On 25 March 2022 the landlord:
1. wrote to neighbour A about the criminal damage caused to the resident’s property.
2. raised a task to work with residents in respect of parking on the close.
On 1 April 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident advising that it had requested that its neighbourhood team work with residents within the close to resolve park issues.
Following the resident’s request for a doorbell camera on 30 March 2022, the landlord noted that it sent one to him by recorded delivery on 6 April 2022.
On 7 April 2022 the landlord received a statement from a witness to the incident of 29 January 2022. The witness said she was a friend of the resident and that she had seen and heard neighbour A assault and racially abuse the resident.
On 3 May 2022 the landlord served the resident with a section 21 notice, telling him of its intention to end his tenancy agreement. The resident appealed this notice on 7 May 2022. He said he had done nothing wrong and had been the victim of burglary, harassment, racial abuse and assault by neighbour A. He said he considered a home transfer would be the best option for him in the circumstances.
On 6 June 2022 a manager for the landlord (officer T) noted he had arranged to meet with the resident the following day about his appeal. The landlord’s file does not provide a contemporaneous record of this meeting. However, it stated in later correspondence that he raised concerns that the landlord had not supported him or properly investigated his reports of a hate crime.
On 14 June 2022 the landlord noted contact from the resident, who had raised concerns about “suicidal thoughts”. It noted the resident was aware of the mental health team, a support charity and would contact his GP.
On 28 June 2022 the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It referred to dissatisfaction raised by the resident on 7 June 2022. The landlord said it had decided it was appropriate to formally review the way it had responded to his ASB reports. It said it would response to the resident about this and his appeal by 1 July 2022.
On 8 July 2022 the landlord undertook a review of its response to hate crime reports by the resident. This noted:
1. The landlord had taken action against the resident’s neighbour following criminal damage of the resident’s property.
2. It had taken action against the resident for racially aggravated abuse and damage of his neighbour’s car.
3. It had provided the resident with a ring doorbell.
4. There was evidence from footage provided by the resident of instances when he had been subjected to racial abuse.
The same day the landlord wrote to the resident about the section 21 appeal outcome. It said:
1. The resident denied the allegations of racial abuse and criminal damage to his neighbour’s car.
2. It had reviewed the evidence the resident had shared including recordings of his vehicle being blocked in by cars belonging to his neighbours.
3. There were counter allegations from his neighbours of the resident blocking other cars in.
4. The resident had provided footage of his property being damaged by neighbour A. The landlord said it had taken action against the person who caused this criminal damage.
5. The resident had shared footage that was not already on the landlord’s system, including the recording of resident’s property, and of a male walking past the resident’s home and using racist language. The landlord said the use of this language was a hate crime and that the resident should share the information with the police.
The landlord said that as part of its review it had identified the resident had said he was the victim of racist abuse. It acknowledged that it could have supported the resident more effectively as part of its case management.
The landlord said the police considered the resident was a catalyst/perpetrator of issues at the close. However, it said that following its review, it was not satisfied it had itself fully investigated the matter. It said it should have taken further steps before serving the resident with the section 21 notice. On this basis it upheld the resident’s appeal. It stated the section 21 notice was no longer valid. The landlord noted the resident was seeking to move. It said it had put his case forward to its management moves panel.
On 12 July 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident. It outlined the outcome of its case review. It said:
1. It had identified ways it could improve its response to hate related incidents.
2. Its response to the community issues raised by the resident was not comprehensive. It said it should have carried out further investigation before serving the section 21 notice.
The landlord apologised for its approach in applying the section 21 notice. It said it understood the distress and inconvenience this must have caused to the resident. It said it would:
1. Continue to roll out specialist hate crime training to appropriate staff.
2. Share learning from the section 21 appeal team.
3. Review its section 21 process, including the appeal process.
The landlord noted that the resident had raised a concern it had not taken any action against his neighbour. The landlord said that it could confirm action had been taken but was unable to share specific details with the resident.
The landlord noted the resident disagreed with its interpretation of a video recording of an altercation between the resident and his neighbour on 29 January 2022. However, it said it had reviewed this video and considered its interpretation of this to be justified.
The landlord said it was evident that the situation remained “complex” and it urged the resident to engage with the police and to behave in a way that did not escalate tensions.
The landlord offered the resident £250 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience he had suffered as a result of its failings.
The resident responded to the landlord the same day. He said:
1. The settlement offered did not “quantify the effects and the suffering” as a result of the landlord’s actions.
2. The landlord’s actions were not in line with the Equality Act 2010, and he had received no support from it.
3. He was a disabled and vulnerable adult with a mental health disorder and should have been safeguarded by the landlord.
4. The landlord’s failure to act on incidents he had reported had contributed to harassment, assault and his property being damaged and stolen.
On 13 July 2022 the resident sent a further email to the landlord. He said the complaint he had raised had nothing to do with the section 21 notice. He asked that the landlord’s further response address only the handling of his ASB reports. The same day the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord about the issuing of the section 21 notice. He said it was not justly issued and had put him through “months of distress and possibly losing my home”.
On 3 August 2022 the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It said it noted during its investigation of ASB allegations against the resident, he had provided video evidence of what appeared to be racist abuse directed towards him. The landlord said it did not appear to have taken these recordings into account when managing the case.
The landlord said it was sorry the resident felt it had discriminated against him. It said that to support him it has made efforts to contact him to discuss the race-related abuse he said he had experienced. It said it had supported the resident to obtain a camera doorbell to manage interactions with his neighbour. However, the landlord said it accepted this “was not enough”. It said the ASB officer had made enquiries with the resident in an effort to co-ordinate support from other public services for the resident.
The landlord said that as part of its review of the section 21 notice and the hate crime review, it had identified shortcomings in the way it investigated the counter allegations made by the resident. It acknowledged there were additional actions it should have taken to address the concerns the resident raised about parking issues and the behaviour of his neighbour. It said it had:
1. Identified additional actions it needed to take to investigate the resident’s reports.
2. It had adjusted its service by offering the resident a management move.
3. Completed a hate crime review to learn from errors made in the case, including ensuring harm risk assessments were completed in all cases.
4. It had now offered to refer the resident to a specialist support service.
5. Taken proactive action against the resident’s neighbour. It said it could not share details of this intervention with the resident.
The landlord increased its offer of compensation to the resident to £350, made up of:
1. £150 for its failing to manage the counter allegation of racial abuse.
2. £200 for the distress caused to the resident.
On 12 August 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident about the complaint he made about the section 21 notice as a separate issue. It said the complaint response already provided had addressed and acknowledged failings in respect of this. It said it would not be raising a stage 1 complaint on this basis.
That day the resident asked that the issued be referred to a manager for consideration. He said:
1. his previous complaint had been about the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports, and the lack of support provided.
2. his complaint about the section 21 was separate.
3. combining the complaints did not allow it to be fairly and fully investigated.
The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 15 August 2022. He said the compensation offered did not adequately acknowledge the landlord’s failings. He:
1. questioned what effort had been made to discuss race–related abuse with him.
2. Said no effort had been made to co-ordinate support and he had simply been told to report concerns to the police.
On 6 September 2022 the landlord sent a further letter to the resident. In a covering email the landlord told the resident it had undertaken a review and had updated its stage 2 response to include a change to the compensation amount. The updated letter was the same response sent to the resident on 3 August 2022. However, the offer of compensation was increased to £500, made up of:
1. £200 for its failing to manage the counter allegation of racial abuse.
2. £300 for the distress caused to the resident.
The resident responded to the landlord on 8 September 2022. He said he was disappointed by the further stage 2 response sent by the landlord on 6 September 2022. He said:
1. this was “merely copy and pasted from the previous letter”.
2. the only change was the compensation amount.
3. the response did not reflect consideration of his previous emails and review request.
4. he felt “offended and greatly dissatisfied” that the landlord had not paid attention to the “emotions and distress” he had conveyed.
5. he felt “totally ignored”.
The resident said the landlord had not taken into account his vulnerabilities when addressing his complaint. He said he wanted to meet with a member of the landlord’s management team.
On 30 September 2022 officer T offered to meet with the resident. The resident responded the same day. He requested:
1. A meeting with someone other than officer T, who had been involved with the section 21 appeal.
2. That the complaints he had made be addressed individually.
Following this the landlord noted it had arranged for a different senior member of staff to contact the resident on 19 October 2022. There is no record within the landlord’s file of what was discussed at this time.
On 18 and 20 December 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord’s customer complaints panel (CCP). Amongst other things, he said:
1. He was a “disabled vulnerable adult”, had received no support from the landlord.
2. ASB could have been prevented if the landlord had provided support and had acted on his reports.
3. He had provided evidence to the landlord of his neighbour using a racist slur. He said he had not been told by the landlord of any action taken in respect of this.
The resident disputed that the landlord had made enquiries about the whether he was engaged with support services. He said that no effort had been made by the landlord to co-ordinate support.
On 6 January 2023 the landlord noted it was to arrange to supply and fit a lockable bollard to the resident’s driveway.
The landlord’s CCP responded to the resident on 27 January 2023. It said the landlord had:
1. acknowledged and recognised some of its processes had not worked as intended and had reviewed the way it did things as well as implement training.
2. encouraged the resident to engage with support services.
3. confirmed action had been taken against the perpetrators of ASB.
4. worked with the police to ensure that appropriate action was taken where criminal charges needed to be brought.
The CCP said it had made the following recommendations, which it considered would benefit the resident and his neighbours:
1. The landlord should make clear what was the access/driveway at the resident’s property.
2. A collapsible bollard should be installed as soon as possible.
3. Signposting and support should again be offered to the resident.
On 8 February 2023 an officer for the landlord contacted the resident offering their details as a single point of contact. The officer also provided the resident with details of a support charity and explained some of the services it provided. The landlord’s officer also offered to have a wider discussion with the resident about the support.
The resident provided the Service with details of a stage 2 complaint response he received from the landlord in September 2023. This was a response to the resident’s complaint about its handling of his reports of racial abuse by his neighbour in June 2023. The landlord identified that it delayed in responding to the resident’s reports, and that no reasonable steps were taken to offer him support. The resident has not referred this complaint to the Service, but said that he considers it provides evidence that the landlord has not learnt from its previous mistakes.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.

The resident first made reports to the landlord of ASB on 4 January 2022, of verbal abuse and racist language towards his visitor. The landlord took some action, by sending the resident an evidence gathering log that day. However, there is no evidence it took other appropriate steps such as completing a risk assessment, or agreeing an action plan with the resident.
In line with the landlord’s ASB policy it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done so. That was particularly the case when the resident made contact again on 6 January 2022. At this time, he told the landlord of his mental health issues and how this situation was affecting him. Despite this, there is no evidence of the landlord considering whether support or signposting was needed at this time. Nor is there evidence it considered action or intervention in respect of the issues the resident reported with parking, or his belief his neighbour was selling cannabis. It did not consider action in respect of parking issues until 11 March 2022 and there is no evidence it gave any advice or undertook action about the resident’s concerns his neighbour was selling cannabis.
There was a range of actions and interventions the landlord could have considered, as set out in its ASB policy. Given that it was aware of incidents the resident’s neighbours had reported and the counter allegations the resident had made, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not consider some form of action or intervention following the resident’s report in early-January 2022.
The landlord again failed to risk assess, agree an action plan, consider intervention after the resident made a further report on 31 January 2022. This was a further departure from its ASB policy. The resident said he had been racially abused and pushed by neighbour A on 29 January 2022. Its advice to him, to contact the police and log further incidents, gave no consideration to what action or intervention it could take itself. As the landlord later identified during its review and consideration of the complaint, it should have done more to assess the risk of harm, and agree an action plan with the resident.
By this time the landlord had been receiving ASB reports from the close for over a month, from several residents. While there is evidence the landlord had been in contact with the police during this time about the reports from the close, it would have been reasonable for it to consider more proactive action or intervention. The landlord showed no apparent commitment to early intervention to prevent the issues from escalating, or concern for the impact of the issues on others living on the close.
The resident told the landlord on 16 February 2022 of his reluctance to report the issues with his neighbour to the police because of fear of repercussions. But even after this the landlord took no action, nor gave any apparent consideration to intervention. It was appropriate for the landlord to direct the resident to discuss concerns to the police, but it would also have been reasonable for it to offer support/signposting in view of what the resident had said about how issues were affecting him. Agreeing or discussing potential actions or interventions could have helped to manage the resident’s concerns.
There is evidence the landlord reviewed the recordings the resident sent of the incident of 29 January 2022. It noted these showed arguing and pushing. There is also evidence that it contacted the witness whose details the resident provided. The landlord’s contact with the resident on 28 February 2022 and 8 July 2022 provides evidence that it communicated to the resident to some extent, its conclusions about this incident. But there is no evidence that it explained or demonstrated to the resident it had taken account of the statement provided by the witness. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to do so. It is acknowledged that the landlord and the resident had different views about whether footage showed the resident as the “victim”. But the landlord also obtained an account from the witness the resident provided. Given this, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to demonstrate it had reviewed the situation in light of this information, or explain why it was not doing so.
Following the resident’s appeal and complaint the landlord undertook a review of the case, including reviewing how it had responded to the resident’s reports of a hate crime. It noted at this time that it had identified ways to improve its response to hate related incidents, and that it would roll out specialist hate crime training to appropriate staff. Furthermore, during its stage 2 response of August 2022, the landlord stated it had identified additional actions it needed to take to investigate the resident’s reports, and had offered to refer the resident to a specialist support service. Despite this, it is not apparent what action, if any, the landlord took to investigate the reports or refer the resident to a support service.
It is not clear from records exactly when the landlord was provided with a recording of a male using racist language when walking by the resident’s house. However, it is evident it had seen this footage by 8 July 2022. While it was reasonable for the landlord to direct the resident to share this information with the police, there is no evidence the landlord took steps to investigate the issue itself. By December 2022 the resident was still questioning what action the landlord had taken in respect of this. There is no indication he received a response from the landlord about this.
In line with its responsibilities the landlord should have acted to appropriately investigate the report and consider the evidence the resident had provided. In addition, while the landlord had also noted that more should have been done around the parking issue raised, again there is little evidence this was taken forward. The landlord recorded in March 2022 that a task was to be raised around the issue of the parking on the close. It later told the resident the neighbourhood team would work with residents to resolve the parking issues. But there is no evidence of action by the landlord in respect of parking until January 2023. It is acknowledged that some actions may have been taken forward by neighbourhood team and not noted on the ASB records. But the landlord was aware that the parking issue was contributing to ASB issues on the close. As such, it would have been reasonable for it to be monitored, reviewed and recorded as part of the ASB case.
The landlord had identified that further work was needed, in July 2022, around its investigation of the resident’s ASB reports. The landlord noted 2 meetings with the resident, in June and October 2022, but no record has been provided of what was discussed at this time. That is a failing in record keeping. Keeping a clear and contemporaneous record of meetings or discussions with residents is essential. That is particularly the case here as issues raised/discussed included the resident’s appeal and his dissatisfaction with the handling of his ASB reports and subsequent complaint. It is possible the landlord discussed at this time what actions it was now taking to investigate the resident ASB reports. But it has not provided evidence of any discussions at this time.
The resident later said that no effort had been made by the landlord to coordinate support. The landlord did speak to the resident on 14 June 2022, after it noted he had expressed suicidal thoughts, at which time it discussed and directed him to support. It was aware of the resident’s vulnerability, as well as its past failure to provide signpost/support him. In these circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to do more to ensure adequate support and signposting was provided, along with reviewing the situation through regular contact. The ability of the landlord to have appropriately done so would undoubtedly been aided had it clearly set out an action plan, and undertaken a risk assessment during this time. These would have been appropriate steps under its ASB policy, but were particularly so after the landlord had identified earlier shortcomings in this regard.
The landlord took positive action by undertaking a hate crime review during this time and identified ways it could improve its response. It also identified its failure to provide adequate support to the resident. However, the resident has questioned whether it has really learnt from failings on this case. This is understandable given the evidence from his recent complaint suggests a recurrence of failings in its handling of hate crime related ASB, and support. It is essential that learning from complaints is implemented, and disseminated to appropriate staff. An order has been made aimed at ensuring that training and guidance to staff is implemented with the aim of ensuring the failings identified are not repeated.
Overall, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. It failed to:
1. complete appropriate risk assessments, or discuss and set out an action plan with the resident.
2. take adequate steps to signpost/support the resident despite being told of his vulnerability soon after his first report.
3. consider appropriate interventions following the resident’s reports of ASB in January 2022.
4. appropriately advise the resident of how it had investigated the incident of 29 January 2022.
5. respond to the resident’s concerns that his neighbour was selling cannabis.
6. take earlier action about parking issues it identified were contributing to ASB, or monitor and review whether these had been resolved.
7. keep appropriate records of meetings and discussions with the resident.
8. take appropriate steps to investigate an incident of racist language after being provided footage.
The landlord has acknowledged failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. During its handling of the resident’s appeal, and his complaint, it noted that it should have taken further steps to investigate and address the ASB the resident reported, and before serving him with a section 21 notice. It also identified that it should have supported the resident more during this time.
During its handling of the resident’s complaint the landlord awarded compensation of £500. This was made up of £200 for the failure to manage his counter allegation of ASB and £300 for the distress caused to the resident. In communications with the resident about his wish to raise a separate complaint about its issue of the section 21 notice to him, the landlord said it had already addressed and acknowledged this issue in the complaint response. It is noted that the landlord had acknowledged there were failings in it serving the section 21 notice without further investigation of the resident’s ASB reports. However, the compensation amount awarded does not appear to adequately consider, or explain how it had taken account of the level of distress and concern to the resident as a result of this. The resident later outlined that the serving of the section 21 notice caused him distress and worry about the possibility of losing his home, over a period of months (between May and July 2022). The level of award by the landlord does not adequately recognise or reflect this.
With reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, and the circumstances of the case, further awards have been ordered. This is to recognise the level of distress and concern to the resident caused by the landlord failings in its handling of ASB reported and the support. A separate award has been made to recognise the impact of the issuing of the section 21 notice prior to appropriately investigating the resident’s ASB concerns.

The ASB reports made against the resident

The landlord’s records show that it received a number of reports of ASB about the resident. These included reports of verbal abuse, using racist language, and threats. Further, in March 2022 it received reports the resident had damaged another resident’s car.
In line with its duties, and its ASB policy, it was appropriate for the landlord to respond to these reports. It is noted that the landlord investigated by liaising with the police, and speaking to other residents on the close. While it is noted the resident later denied the allegations of racial abuse and criminal damage, the steps the landlord took in response to the information and reports, by applying for an injunction, appear appropriate and proportionate. It is noted that the landlord later accepted the 21 notice should not have been issued. But this was in view of its failing to fully investigate the resident’s counter allegations of ASB, rather than because of any failing in its handling of the reports of ASB made about the resident.
However, as noted earlier, there was more that the landlord should have done to consider early intervention following the ASB reports. The landlord had received a series reports of serious ASB by the resident, yet there is no evidence it discussed these with him. As previously stated, there was a lack of commitment by the landlord to take prompt action to prevent the ASB from escalating, such as contact with him or consideration of mediation. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the ASB reports about the resident. As a result of the landlord’s failings, steps were not taken at an earlier stage to raise or attempt to manage ASB issues. The impact of this has been considered in the award to the resident to recognise the landlord failing to appropriate respond to the ASB reports.

The handling of the complaint

The landlord noted the resident had raised his dissatisfaction with its handling of his ASB reports on 7 June 2022, when it met with him to discuss his appeal. While it was appropriate for the landlord to raise the complaint, it should also have kept adequate records of the points dissatisfaction the resident had raised. As noted earlier, that there is no evidence it did so is a failing in record keeping. Making an accurate record of the resident’s points of concern would have helped to ensure an appropriate response was provided to all issues raised.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 28 June 2022 was 1 week outside its timescales outlined in its complaints policy. Despite this, the landlord offered no acknowledgement or apology for the delay. It would have been appropriate for it to have done so. It said at this time it would review its handling of the way it had responded to the resident’s ASB reports and provide a further response by 1 July 2022. But it did not do so until 12 July 2022. Again, it offered no acknowledgement or apology for this delay. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 3 August 2022 was also delayed by a week, without apology or acknowledgement. Contrary to the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code the landlord failed to provide complaint responses in line with its timescales, and did not agree an extension with the resident. In light of this, an order has been made that the landlord remind complaint handling staff of the importance doing so and of apologising for delayed complaint responses.
The resident had asked that the landlord consider the issuing of the section 21 notice as a separate complaint. However, this issue was intrinsically linked to the issues around its handling of the resident’s ASB reports. In view of this, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider both together. But, in doing so, it was necessary for the landlord to consider the full impact of this failing upon the resident. While the landlord reviewed and increased the compensation award to the resident twice during its handling of his complaint, it still failed to appropriately compensate the resident for the impact of it serving a section 21 notice, or explain how it had done so. This was even after the resident told the landlord of how it had affected him.
The resident told the landlord that he believed that combining the 2 issues would not allow each to be fairly and fully considered. Yet, instead of appropriately explaining to the resident how or whether it had done so, it simply sent a copy of the previous response with an increased offer. This offered the resident no reassurance that the points he had raised had been appropriately considered. The resident later told the landlord he felt ignored and “offended and greatly dissatisfied” by this response. This is unsurprising. It was inappropriate for the landlord to copy a previous response which failed to address the points raised. It demonstrated a lack of care, empathy and effort.
There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of his complaint. It failed to:
1. record details of the meeting with resident when he made the initial complaint.
2. acknowledge or apologise for delays in complaint responses.
3. appropriately consider the impact of it issuing the section 21 notice to the resident.
4. appropriately respond to the points raised, instead sending a copy of a previous response with increased compensation.
The resident said he felt offended and ignored by the landlord’s complaint response view. The lack of clear response to the points he had made about the section 21 notice would undoubtedly have been upsetting and frustrating for the resident. He has also had to spend more time and trouble pursing the matter as a result. That is a detrimental impact to the resident. In light of the complaint handling failures identified, an award has been ordered. This has been made with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and the circumstances of the case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the ASB reports made about the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord failed to take appropriate action in response to the ASB reports made by the resident. It did not agree an action plan or complete a risk assessment. It also failed to consider early intervention. It did not provide or signpost the resident adequately to support. Nor did it comprehensively investigate and respond to his ASB reports. While the landlord acknowledged some failings and made the resident a compensation offer, this did not go far enough to put things right.
The landlord failed to act earlier to consider intervention in response to the ASB reports it had received since December 2021. It did not speak to the resident about the issues, despite receiving reports of serious ASB issues since December 2021. While its actions in applying for an injunction In March 2022 were reasonable and proportionate, it failed to consider other interventions/actions it could have taken earlier to attempt to prevent ASB issues from escalating.
The landlord’s complaint responses were delayed and it offered no apology or acknowledgement for this. Despite the resident raising his concerns about the impact upon him of the section 21 notice, the landlord did not adequately explain how it had taken this into account in its award of compensation. The level of award also did not appropriately recognise this. In addition, the landlord failed to show appropriate regard for the points the resident made by resending a copy of the previous response with an increased award.
The landlord failed to make appropriate records of the meetings/discussions in June and October 2022 with the resident about his appeal and the complaint about its handling his ASB reports.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Write to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. In addition to the £500 previously awarded, pay compensation of £1,400 to the resident, made up of:
  1. £600 for the impact of the failings identified in its handling of the ASB reports.
  2. £400 for the impact of issuing the section 21 notice on the resident prior to adequately investigating his ASB reports.
  3. £400 for the impact of the failings identified in its complaint handling.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Undertake a review of its handling of the resident’s ASB reports, between January and July 2022 and ensure it has provided an appropriate response to the resident about these.
2. Undertake a review of training and guidance to staff dealing with ASB reports to ensure that this adequately addresses the failings identified in the handling of ASB on this case. This should have specific focus on:
  1. Completion of risk assessments and action plans.
  2. Consideration of early intervention.
  3. Appropriate handling of hate crime related ASB.
  4. Appropriate consideration of signposting and support.
3. With reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, remind staff of the importance of appropriately recording details of meetings/discussions with residents.
4. Remind staff of the importance of agreeing extensions and of acknowledging and apologising for delayed complaint responses.