The Guinness Partnership Limited (202305064)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305064

The Guinness Partnership Limited

21 March 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

Both the resident and her husband have corresponded with this Service on the issues under investigation. For the purposes of this report their respective submissions have been referenced as having been received from the resident.
The resident has an assured tenancy at the property which is a 1 bedroom flat. She has lived there with her husband since 2012.The resident has provided medical evidence to the landlord that she suffers from fibromyalgia, a fatty liver and anxiety and depression. Her husband suffers from a depressive disorder and resolved psychosis.
The landlord’s mutual exchange policy states as follows:
1. It will promote mutual exchanges as a way to meet housing needs.
2. It will usually decline an exchange if the incoming resident wishes to move to an age specific scheme and they do not meet the age criteria.
The landlord’s housing applications procedure states as follows:
1. Certain local authority areas have 100% nomination rights for resident’s wanting to move. The resident’s local authority is not included in this list.
2. Resident’s must register onto “YourChoice” in order to bid for a property.
3. Having a medical condition does not in itself attract any priority to move.
4. Resident will be classed as “high band” in the following circumstances:
  1. The applicant needs to move quickly because there is evidence of significant and immediate problems associated with the occupation of their current home. There must be evidence of ongoing risk to the applicant or a member of the household or significant and insurmountable problem with the occupation of their current home.
  2. The current housing conditions are having a major adverse effect on the medical condition of the applicant or a member of the household and this would be substantially improved by a move. There must be evidence of how the applicant’s housing was affecting their medical condition and how it would it would be improved by a move.
5. A medium band is for when the current housing conditions are having an adverse effect on the medical condition of the applicant or a member of the household and this would be substantially improved by the move.
6. The landlord will manually band a resident based on evidence provided.
7. The resident in the highest band who has been in that the band the longest will be prioritised first.
8. A resident may request that a banding decision be reviewed. The request must be made in writing within 21 days from the date the applicant was notified of the decision. An oral request may be permitted it is difficult for the applicant to do so in writing.
The landlord’s allocations policy states a follows:
1. In addition to a housing move via ‘Your Choice’, residents may also apply to move using a local authority’s own allocations scheme.
2. Residents who have a medical need will need to be able to demonstrate that their current housing situation is having an adverse effect on their medical condition and that the condition would be substantially improved if they moved.
3. In exceptional and complex cases, it may consider a management move. This will be on a case by case basis. This is intended to be used in the following circumstances:
  1. A resident needs to move urgently due to a threat of or actual violence or harm. This applies when there is an imminent risk to them or a member of their household if they remain at that property.
  2. A resident needs to move due to exceptional circumstances. There must be evidence of a significant and insurmountable problem associated with the tenant’s occupation of their current home.
4. It operates a review process for residents who wish to have an allocation decision reviewed. Such requests should be made within 7 days of being notified of the decision.
The landlord’s ASB policy states as follows:
1. ASB includes:
  1. Loud music.
  2. Shouting, arguing, swearing and slamming doors.
  3. Allowing animals to foul shared areas.
  4. Being drunk and disorderly.
  5. Drug and alcohol abuse.
  6. Dumping rubbish.
2. It will acknowledge all new ASB reports within a maximum of 2 working days.
3. A named staff member will keep residents informed at regular intervals about the action being taken. It will agree the frequency of such updates with the resident.
4. When it receives a report of ASB, it will carry out a risk assessment to assess the impact the ASB is having on the individual, and whether they are vulnerable and have any support needs. It will take reasonable, timely and proportionate action. This will be proportionate to the severity, impact and frequency of the ASB and the evidence available to support the case.
5. We will work with the complainant and the alleged perpetrator where this is possible, to agree a plan to tackle the ASB. This will set out the actions the perpetrator and the landlord will take to stop the ASB. Where it is appropriate to do so, we will use mediation to try and resolve the ASB before it escalates. Where mediation and reasonable requests to stop the ASB fail, it may decide to take additional action to resolve the behaviour. In serious cases this may include taking legal action.
6. It will work in partnership with other agencies to prevent and tackle ASB and it will provide appropriate support to victims and witnesses, including referrals to support services.
7. It will close an ASB case in the following circumstances:
  1. The behaviour has improved to an acceptable level.
  2. There is no further reasonable action that it can take to resolve the matter.
  3. At the request of the resident reporting the ASB.
The landlord’s complaints policy states as follows:
1. A complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction. If a resident says they want to complain, it will always record this as a complaint.
2. Complaints that will not be considered include where the issue giving rise to the complaint occurred over 6 months before the complaint was made. Exceptional circumstances will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
3. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. If more time is needed it will keep the resident informed.

Summary of events

On 1 July 2021 the landlord sent a formal warning to the resident’s neighbour in respect of ASB (loud music and youths congregating and fighting outside the property). It advised that if it received further proven allegations against the neighbour, it would look at taking further action against the neighbour’s tenancy.
On 15 August 2021 the landlord noted internally as follows:
1. The resident had advised that she had experienced ASB for some time.
2. Despite the landlord issuing a formal warning the resident stated she was still concerned about the neighbour.
3. The situation did not warrant a Band A transfer but that a higher banding would help the resident to move quicker which was “needed for her to settle down”. The resident had advised that she would provide medical evidence.
On 9 September 2021 the landlord contacted the police and stated that it was aware that there had been an incident at the neighbour’s property which had involved a large police presence. It advised the police that it would like to have a joint approach to resolve the issues.
The resident provided the landlord with a doctor’s email on 20 October 2021 setting out the medical conditions of her and her husband (referred to above). She stated she would like to be moved to a higher band category before the end of that week. The following day (21 October 2021) the landlord noted internally that its Customer Liaison Officer and Tenancy Enforcement Caseworker supported a move to a higher band for the resident and noted that it had an open ASB case.
On 22 October 2021 the resident contacted the landlord in respect of moving to the highest band and stated as follows:
1. Containers and vans had been arriving and making noise in the street for the last 10 years. In addition to workmen, the neighbour played loud music and drank. The neighbour had threatened to “slap” her and she was scared to be on her own. The landlord had not done anything about it and had not called every week as promised.
2. The landlord had advised the previous day that the resident would not be moved (it is unclear if this was move property or move band).
3. She requested that the landlord change their band category to the highest.
4. Both her and her husband’s mental health was being impacted by the ASB. They could not sleep which was impacting the husband’s job. It had also caused the resident’s fibromyalgia to flare up.
The landlord noted internally that same day that it had approved the resident to be moved to “High Band B”.
On 11 July 2022 the landlord noted internally that the neighbour had been given until 13 July 2022 to remove items. It is not clear what these items were or where they were located.
The landlord wrote to all residents of the block on 12 July 2022 and stated as follows:
1. It was investigating continued reports of ASB.
2. No alcohol or illegal substances were to be consumed in communal areas.
3. Residents and their visitors should keep noise to an acceptable level.
4. Dog owners must ensure that they pick up and dispose of dog foul.
On 18 July 2022 the landlord received a bid from the resident but this had not indicated which property it was for. It left a voicemail for the resident to call it back (it is not clear if this happened). It noted on 3 August 2022 that the resident had bid on a property but had since decided it was too far away.
On 6 August 2022 the resident advised the landlord that the ASB was impacting her mental health and requested to be moved to band A. The landlord explained that it could only do so following a medical referral.
On 10 August 2022 the neighbour made a counter allegation and stated that the resident’s nephew had threatened them and smashed their window. They were concerned for the safety of their children. They stated that the resident would often walk past and stare into their property. They outlined the impact this was having on them.
There was a gap in correspondence until 24 January 2023 when the resident reported that the neighbour was using the fire exit door to let visitors in. She stated that the door was next to her living room and was being slammed causing her stress. The landlord tried to make contact to discuss this with the resident on 24, 25 and 26 January 2023. It subsequently spoke to the resident about this on 1 February 2023 and advised it would visit the neighbour the following day to discuss the matter.
On 8 February 2023 the resident advised the landlord that the door slamming had continued and was affecting her mental health. The landlord completed a “Harm assessment” and opened an ASB case. It noted internally that it had discussed the matter with the neighbour who had denied the allegations. It subsequently closed the ASB case on 20 February 2023.
On 1 March 2023 the resident advised the landlord that she had heard the neighbour on the phone on 24 February 2023 shouting that they were going to get her car and flat “lit” and he seemed to have been drinking. Following this, on 28 February 2023, a visitor of the neighbour had stared through her window and had climbed in and out the neighbour’s kitchen window. She stated she felt intimidated and harassed. The landlord completed a harm assessment and opened an ASB case that same day. It noted that it had been due to complete a joint door knock with the police however this had not taken place. It stated this should be carried out and that it would send out an ASB survey to the block. It acknowledged that the neighbour had previously ripped out some hedges and made a “little drinking area” but that it had reinstated the hedging. The landlord’s internal correspondence at this time demonstrated that it was considering the history of the neighbour’s case, including the formal tenancy action it had taken previously and the possibility of progressing the case to possession action should behaviour not improve.
On 2 March 2023 the landlord noted internally as follows:
1. It would investigate the reports and would advise the resident of the importance of diarising everything and reporting criminal matters to the police.
2. It should contact the neighbour and advise that it had received further complaints and would be issuing a pre-legal letter and an ABC.
3. It would enquire about support needs for the resident and neighbour and signpost the resident to victim support.
4. It would send out ASB surveys and carry out a door knock.
That same day the landlord called the resident and noted as follows:
1. The resident was extremely upset, crying and panicking.
2. She had advised that the neighbour had been shouting all day and she could hear them over her TV.
3. She felt there was no point in calling the police as the last time she did the neighbour threatened to slap her and it took the police 4 days to call her.
4. She was very worried for her safety whilst her husband was out at work.
5. She reiterated about visitors going in and out the neighbour’s window, the door being kicked open, people filming her, dogs going to the toilet in communal areas and the neighbour throwing rubbish bags out of the window.
6. She stated that the neighbour had assaulted a previous tenant and forced her out of the property.
7. She agreed to call the police to report previous issues and ask for advice and that she would report any future issues to the police.
8. Her mental health worker would be speaking to the landlord.
9. She would send the landlord recordings from her camera.
10. She reiterated that she wanted to move.
11. The landlord had advised her that it would:
  1. Send diary sheets.
  2. Try to speak to other neighbours and the police.
  3. Discuss the behaviour with the neighbour.
  4. It aimed to update her weekly.
The landlord held an internal ASB case review on 7 March 2023 and discussed what it would include in the ABC. It also stated that it would investigate the neighbour’s support needs and carrying out a door knock.
On 10 March 2023 the landlord noted internally that it had spoken to the neighbour who denied having visitors. He acknowledged using the fire door but said this was his young daughter letting a friend in. He made counter allegations against the resident. These included the resident staring at him, smoking drugs, and having a camera pointing into his property. He also stated that a member of her resident’s family smashing his window and threatened him online.
On 14 March 2023 the neighbour advised the landlord that he had been in the communal garden the day before and the resident had verbally abused him and called him “a grass”. He made a complaint to the landlord in respect of its handling of the matter.
On 15 March 2023 the resident called the landlord and stated as follows:
1. Her doctor had put her on medication for high blood pressure. She had been advised that she was at a high risk of heart attack and stroke due to her blood pressure
2. The day before she had been stopped by a car and the people inside (who she recognised as associates of the neighbour) were abusive and swore at her. She had reported the matter to the police.
3. She was “absolutely petrified” and was too scared to attend appointments that week. She wanted to move.
That same day, the landlord held a case conference and noted internally as follows:
1. It had not received any evidence from the resident in respect of the allegation. As such it was unable to support a move for the resident. When it had advised the resident that it could not move her without evidence she became very upset and angry and advised she would be going to the press. It had advised her that she could email the video footage or a staff member could collect it from her.
2. It was waiting to hear from the police about what action it was taking.
3. It discussed offering the resident a video doorbell but concluded that as she had cameras, this would not provide an additional benefit.
4. It noted that it could look to offer additional locks to help the resident feel safe.
5. It had discussed mediation but the resident was not in support of this.
The landlord’s staff took part in a conference call on 20 March 2023. The landlord noted internally as follows:
1. Door knocking should be carried out that week.
2. ASB surveys had been sent out to residents. No responses had been received.
3. Going forward, it would speak to the resident to see if she could provide evidence. It would liaise with the police to see if they had reports of previous issues and any evidence.
On 21 March 2023 the landlord noted internally that it had completed a site walk and door knock (the date of this is not clear) and no issues had been reported by tenants. It had emailed the resident again asking for video footage or other evidence.
On 28 March 2023 the neighbour reported that the resident was still filming him. The landlord advised him in respect of their options to move.
That same day (29 March 2023) the landlord responded to a complaint from the resident. It is not clear when this complaint was submitted however it was in respect of the landlord asking the resident to provide evidence of ASB. The landlord stated as follows:
1. It acknowledged that the resident had been unhappy with its advice that it required evidence before it could take further action. It apologised for any upset caused. It advised that it had not received any evidence and asked if she could send the footage.
2. It had attended the block and spoken to tenants including the resident. No recordings were shown to the landlord during this visit.
3. It reiterated that without evidence there is little it could take by way of action.
On 5 April 2023 the landlord spoke to the resident. She stated she had thrown the ASB survey in the bin and that it was “pointless” as the landlord would not take action. The landlord advised that if instances were not reported then it would not be able to take action. The resident asked if the landlord could consider the neighbour’s actions towards the previous tenant. The landlord advised that this was not possible.
The landlord received an allegation of threatening behaviour by the resident from another tenant on 11 April 2023.
On 19 April 2023 the resident sent the landlord video recordings. The landlord advised her that it had received these and that it needed time to view these and that it would contact her the following week. It noted that the resident was happy with this.
On 5 May 2023 the resident advised the landlord that she had heard the neighbour “battering” someone. She had not reported this to the police for fear of reprisals. She stated her heart was pounding and she was anxious. She advised that he was still climbing through his window and using the fire door. Following this call, the landlord made a safeguarding referral in respect of the allegation made.
On 10 May 2023 the landlord noted internally:
1. It had viewed the video footage (19 videos) from the resident. These had shown minor issues. Reports of threats and shouting had not been evidenced. It had identified the following from the video footage:
  1. Fly-tipping.
  2. Dog mess on the grass that the neighbour or a friend did not clean up.
  3. Constant use of the fire door as a main entrance. Banging and kicking of this was not shown in the footage.
  4. Climbing through the window on occasion.
2. It had received no evidence from the neighbour to support his allegation about the resident so that case would be closed.
That same day it noted internally that it had received a further video from the resident which showed an altercation between the resident and the neighbour’s partner. The resident could be heard to be shouting and being aggressive. The partner threw something at the resident which resulted in them fighting.
On 10 May 2023 the resident submitted a complaint and stated as follows:
1. Her and her husband had been put through “hell” for the past 6 years.
2. She had provided video footage and reported matters to the police but the landlord had not moved them to a different property.
3. Both her and her husband’s health had worsened. She was too scared to go out on her own and felt like a prisoner in the property.
The following day (11 May 2023) the resident contacted the landlord and stated that another tenant had been approved for a managed move. She stated she wanted to make a complaint that she had not been moved. The resident subsequently terminated the call.
The resident contacted this Service on 16 May 2023 and stated that the landlord had not permitted her to raise a complaint. This Service asked the landlord to respond at stage 1 by 8 June 2023.The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 May 2023.
On 19 May 2023 the landlord spoke to the resident about the matters and it noted that the resident did not want to take the ASB case any further and that it could be closed. It noted that it had confirmed the moving options to her.
On 24 May 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and stated at follows:
1. It confirmed that the ASB case had been closed.
2. It had reviewed the video evidence and some issues were identified however, these were not considered to be a threat. These were best managed locally by a Customer Liaison Officer.
3. The Customer Liaison Officer advised that the resident no longer wanted to pursue the ASB case and had asked for it to be closed. As a result no further action would be taken.
4. To prevent further instances it recommended not engaging with the neighbour and he had been given the same advice.
5. It asked the resident to document any further instances and to contact the police if she felt her safety was threatened.
On 24 May 2023 the landlord also responded to the complaint at stage 1 and stated as follows:
1. Following a report of ASB it had contacted the resident on 5 April 2023 to discuss this and the resident provided the video footage on 19 April 2023. These were reviewed and showed evidence of fly tipping, constant use of the fire door, a resident climbing through a window and residents failing to clean up dog mess in the communal area. These issues were being dealt with by its Customer Liaison Officer and was not something the Tenancy Enforcement Team could help with.
2. The complaint was not upheld as no failings had been identified in the response by its Tenancy Enforcement Team.
3. Its Customer Liaison Officer had explained the different options available to the resident should she wish to move to another property.
This Service assisted the resident to escalate her complaint on 23 June 2023. The resident stated that she had provided evidence of ASB, however the matter had not been resolved. The landlord acknowledged this on 27 June 2023.
On 19 July 2023 the landlord responded at stage 2 and stated as follows:
1. Its complaints policy was clear that it could only investigate events that had occurred 6 months prior to a complaint being made. It had reviewed the resident’s reports of ASB during that time and they had been handled in line with its ASB policy.
2. It had concluded at stage 1 that the issues evidenced could not be dealt with by the Tenancy Enforcement Team and would be dealt with by its Customer Liaison Officer. Its Customer Liaison Officer had contacted the resident to discuss options in respect of moving to another property.
3. In respect of the resident’s request to raise a complaint, she had called on 11 May 2023 to advise that another tenant had been given a managed move and she wanted to make a complaint. The landlord had explained that registering a complaint would not guarantee a move and asked to put the resident on hold whilst the call handler contacted the Tenancy Enforcement Team. The resident then terminated the call. The call handler called back and left a voicemail message asking the resident to return the call to discuss logging a complaint. It did not receive any further contact from the resident in respect of this. It concluded that it had not failed in how it handled the resident’s attempt to raise a complaint.
On 21 Jul 2023 the resident referred her complaint to this Service and stated as follows:
1. The ASB had been ongoing for 6 years.
2. The landlord moved the previous tenant due to ASB.
3. The landlord had recently moved another tenant in the block.
4. The landlord was aware of the impact on the resident and her husband and that they had involved the police. They no longer felt they could have their grandchildren over.
5. Her husband had to stop working night shifts as he could not sleep due to loud music, drinking, drug taking and police attending.
6. They have been looking for alternative properties for 6 years. She had asked to be put at the top of the priority list and had sent in doctor’s letters to support this.

Correspondence following the involvement of this Service

On 13 October 2023 the resident advised that the landlord had not transferred her to a new property and the ASB was causing PTSD.
The landlord noted internally on 6 November 2023 that the resident had asked if she and her husband could move to an available over 55 property. The landlord advised that this was not possible as her and her husband did not meet the age requirements.
On 10 November 2023 the resident advised this Service that the landlord had not called her as promised in respect of a fire in the car park. This Service advised the resident to submit a complaint to the landlord.
On 1 December 2023 the landlord confirmed to this Service that it had spoken to the resident about mutual exchange and that she was on its transfer list.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has stated that the ASB has been ongoing for the last 6 years. The resident has had the opportunity to raise her concerns via the landlord’s complaints procedure and subsequently with this Service throughout this time period. With the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment will only focus on the events leading up to the resident’s complaint. Reference to events that occurred prior to this are made in this report to provide context only.
It must be noted that this Service is not a reactive service and as such this investigation only considers the matters investigated by the landlord during its internal complaints procedure which concluded in July 2023. The resident subsequently reported further matters to this Service. The following matters raised after the completion of the internal complaints procedure do not form part of this investigation:
1. The landlord’s communication with the resident in respect of a fire.
It is noted that the resident has stated that the behaviour of her neighbour and the landlord’s lack of action has impacted her and her husband’s health. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of actions have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim

Response to the resident’s reports of ASB

It is evident that the situation has been distressing for the resident. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s response to reports of the resident’s reports of ASB and the reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether the neighbour is responsible for ASB. The investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies and procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against the neighbour nor order it to move the resident to a different property.
This Service has seen evidence that the resident had reported ASB by her neighbour since at least 2021. Following medical evidence from the resident, the landlord moved her to a high band B in 2021. Following this, in 2022, the landlord was in contact with the resident about bidding on other properties and one was deemed too far away by the resident. At this stage the landlord had taken appropriate action and had been responsive to the resident’s concerns. Following a counter-allegation by the neighbour in August 2022 there was a gap in correspondence from the resident until Janaury 2023.
When the resident reported on 24 January 2023 that the neighbour was using the fire exit door to let visitors in and the door was being slammed, the landlord tried to contact the resident in respect of this that same day and subsequently on 25 and 26 January 2023. This was in line with its ASB policy. Following this ASB report the landlord took the following action:
1. It completed a harm assessment and opened an ASB case.
2. It visit the neighbour the following day to discuss the matter and noted that the allegation was denied.
3. It subsequently closed the ASB case on 20 February 2023.
Whilst the landlord acted appropriately in taking these steps to investigate the reported ASB there is no evidence that on this occasion it asked the resident if she had any supporting evidence such as footage from her cameras. It was not appropriate for the landlord to rely on the neighbours denial to close the case without any further investigation. Given that it was aware of the history of such reports there is also no evidence that it suggested any preventative action such as mediation at this stage.
Within 2 weeks (1 March 2023) the resident reported further ASB from the neighbour. This time involving threats towards her, alcohol use and again the incorrect use of the window. Following this report the landlord took the following action:
1. It completed a harm assessment and opened an ASB case that same day.
2. It considered the 2 previous warnings it had given to the neighbour and considered an escalation of the action it could take, namely a pre-legal letter and an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC).
3. It provided diary sheets to the resident.
4. It committed to speaking to other neighbours (via door knocking) and the police.
5. It committed to discuss the behaviour with the neighbour.
6. It advised the reside that it would update her weekly.
7. It held an internal case review and conference call to discuss the situation.
8. It committed to investigate the neighbour’s support needs.
9. It considered offering the resident a video doorbell.
10. It offered the resident additional locks and mediation (both of which were declined).
These were appropriate actions for the landlord to have taken and were in line with its ASB policy both in terms of addressing the reported behaviour, seeking to understand the needs of the neighbour and in supporting the resident. It was also appropriate for it to seek the involvement of external agencies. It is also noted that the landlord made a safeguarding referral in respect of a report from the resident despite this not having been evidenced. This was appropriate and demonstrated that it had taken her concern seriously.
It was appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident for evidence to support her reports and that it would not be able to consider a move for her without this. This was in line with its housing applications procedure which states that resident’s must be able to provide evidence of the impact of ongoing housing matters on them. When this footage was provided the landlord advised that the behaviour evidenced could not be considered by its tenancy team and were instead matters for its customer liaison officer. This use of landlord specific internal job titles was inappropriate and was not helpful for the resident. It did not provide a clear explanation as to why the landlord could not take further action following the receipt of the video evidence. This caused frustration to the resident.
Whilst the video evidence may not have recorded such behaviour as might support a move for the resident, the behaviour identified appeared to come within the landlord’s definition of ASB. The landlord should have made this clear to the resident. This would helped her to feel that she was being heard instead of the evidence she provided being seemingly dismissed. Despite the footage supporting a number of the resident’s reports (on at least 19 different videos, (not seen by this Service)) the landlord did not discuss with the resident how it could support her with the evidenced behaviour.
The landlord was aware that the issues had been ongoing since at least 2021 and it therefore should have treated the evidenced behaviour with added urgency. It is noted that the resident chose to ask for the landlord to close the ASB case, however her submission of a subsequent complaint made it clear that she did not feel the matter had been resolved. As such it would have been appropriate for the landlord to discuss with her keeping the case open and to advise on the steps it could take.
Although the landlord took some steps to support the resident and took appropriate action in moving her to a higher band, it did not go far enough to support her when considered against the background of repeated reports against the neighbour. Although the landlord had previously considered taking further action against the neighbour, it did not consider the evidenced behaviour to be serious enough to warrant this. Whilst this may have been appropriate if taking the evidenced behaviour in isolation, this was not appropriate when taken in the contest of the repeated reports and the considerable impact this was having on the resident. These failures amount to maladministration.
To acknowledge the impact of this failing on the resident, in light of her vulnerabilities, compensation of £300 has been ordered. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance where a resident has been impacted by the actions or inactions of the landlord. In addition an order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident for an update on how issues stand currently, with a new ASB case to be opened if appropriate.

Complaint handling

The resident submitted 3 complaints to the landlord and involved the assistance of this Service before the landlord appropriately responded to her aspects of complaint.
Complaint A (about the landlord requesting evidence of ASB) was made sometime prior to March 2023 and the landlord responded on 29 March 2023. Despite this response having a complaint reference number it did not stage that it was a response at stage 1 nor did it include any escalation information. This was not appropriate.
The resident submitted a further complaint (complaint B) on 10 May 2023. This was in respect of the landlords lack of action following her ASB reports. This was not responded to.
The resident subsequently spoke to the landlord over the telephone on 11 May 2023. She made it clear that she wanted to submit a complaint (complaint C) as another tenant had been moved and she had not. As the resident terminated this call and did not get back in touch with the landlord when it called her back, it did not raise this as a complaint. This was not appropriate as the resident had specifically requested a complaint be made and prior to the call disconnecting she had explained the basis of her complaint.
The landlord’s lack of appropriate complaint handling led to the resident seeking help from this Service on 16 May 2023. It was only following the involvement of this Service that the landlord followed its complaints procedure and provided a stage 1 and 2 response.
The landlord did not address the complaint handling aspect of the resident’s complaint at stage 1. This was not appropriate nor in line with the Hosing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the Code). It addressed this aspect at stage 2 and concluded that as the call had been terminated and it had not receive any further contact from the resident, it had not failed in its handling of the matter. This was not appropriate as the resident had made her intention to raise a complaint clear and had explained the basis of it. It was not reasonable for the landlord to put the onus of calling it back on the resident and this created a barrier to the resident’s concerns being dealt with effectively.
In summary the landlord’s complaint handling failures effectively blocked the resident from escalating her complaint and then from submitting further complaints. This had a significant impact on the resident who felt she was not being listened to or taken seriously by the landlord and led to her believing that the landlord had refused to accept her complaint. This amounts to a service failure. Compensation of £150 has been ordered to acknowledge the impact this had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord took some reasonable steps in responding to the reports of ASB however it did not go far enough to support the resident in light of the history of such reports in this case. It was not clear as to why the evidence she provided was not sufficient for it to take action and instead provided confusing information in respect of its different teams.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaints in line with its complaints procedure. It failed to provide escalation information, declined to accept a complaint and did not address all aspects in its response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
1. Pay a total of £450 compensation to the resident as follows:
  1. £300 to acknowledge the impact the landlord’s failures in respect of the ASB had on the resident.
  2. £150 to acknowledge the impact the landlord’s complaint handling failures had on the resident.
Contact the resident for an update on how issues stand currently and open a new ASB case if appropriate.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord undertake training with its staff on the complaints procedure and complaint handling.