Town and Country Housing (202216902)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216902

Town and Country Housing

31 January 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 landlords response to the residents reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).
This service has also considered the landlords record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant, the tenancy started on 12 April 2021. The property is a 1 bedroom, second floor flat within a block which has communal areas. The landlord notes that the resident has stated he has learning difficulties, literacy problems and autism.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its procedure says it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days and respond within 10 working days at both stages. If for any reason it is not able to keep to these timeframes it will contact the customer to agree an extended date.
The landlords compensation policy states discretionary compensation can be offered and will be proportionate to the inconvenience caused. It states it can make goodwill payments where service failures have occurred.
The landlords ASB policy states it will “put victims first”. It also states:
1. It will agree an individual action plan with the complainant and carry out all actions within the agreed timescales detailing what action will be taken and possible outcomes.
2. Where a breach of tenancy has been proved and enforcement is appropriate, it will attempt to tackle the behaviour of the people responsible.
3. It will ensure that those suffering as a result of the ASB are supported and kept informed of progress until the case is concluded.
4. The frequency of the updates will be agreed between the complainant and the investigating officer. This can include:
  1. Emotional support by way of regular telephone calls and/or visits.
  2. Referral to the witness support service who have access to a range of further support services.
The ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014 statutory guidance says landlords should put the victim first. This guidance says it is good practice to assess the risk of harm to the victim(s), and any potential vulnerabilities, when a complaint is received about ASB.

Scope of the investigation

The resident has an appointed representative who would, at times, also contact the landlord on his behalf, for ease, both are referred to as “the resident” in this report.
It is acknowledged that the resident had been reporting ASB prior to making a formal complaint, the landlord has provided evidence to show other residents within the block raised similar reports and referenced an ongoing investigation since 2021. However, the matter was not subject to the landlord’s internal complaints procedure until 29 August 2022.
The landlord’s investigations into the ASB involved 3 other residents in the same block as the resident’s property. These will be referred to as alleged perpetrator A, B and C throughout this report.
Paragraph 42 (c) states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, in line with paragraph 42 (c), the Ombudsman will only assess the matter in relation to events from February 2022 onwards (six months preceding the formal complaint of August 2022).

Summary of events

The landlord opened an ASB case on 23 February 2022, notes on this case show multiple complainants, of which 1 was the resident, these complaints related to alleged perpetrator A.
The resident called the landlord on 1 March 2022 to report a neighbour being intoxicated in the communal area, whilst on this call he was made aware of a meeting with the police and council members. He asked to be updated following the meeting.
The landlord opened another ASB case on 17 March 2022, notes on this case show multiple complainants, of which 1 was the resident, about alleged perpetrator B.
On 12 April 2022, following an email from the resident the landlord confirmed to the resident that the case was still open and it was visiting the alleged perpetrators A and B that week.
On 20 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord asking why CCTV could not be installed to give residents in the block “protection” and said the landlord could not expect “people to be living with these 2 with no security, wondering around the building overnight smashing it up”. The landlord responded to explain it was aware of the 2 people mentioned.
An incident occurred on 17 May 2022 where alleged perpetrator B reportedly set the fire alarm off and the block was evacuated. The resident emailed the landlord the next day and said, “get rid of her now as promised”. A further email sent on this day also said, “please get rid of her”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 May 2022, to say the smell in the corridor was unbearable due to vomit and requested the carpets be disinfected. He stated the property was “unliveable”.
The landlord opened another ASB case on 16 June 2022, notes on this case show multiple complainants, of which 1 was the resident, about alleged perpetrator C.
The landlord noted it spoke to the resident over the phone on 14 July 2022 and advised it would continue to support residents. The resident said being able to speak to someone all the time about the ASB would support him, the landlord advised it was not able to do that and if a serious issue occurred, he would need to call the police.
The landlord noted it updated the resident on 18 July 2022, that eviction papers had been served on a neighbour. A further email from the landlord to resident on this day stated, it was “very disappointed” that the resident felt it had not done anything. It said, “as I keep telling you and the others, it’s not a quick process getting someone evicted”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 July 2022 and said he could not cope with weekends at the property and was very stressed with the same “rubbish” that he had put up with for the last 15 months.
On 29 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to advise he did not feel safe being on his own when his neighbours were away and he needed to move out for 2 weeks due to the current problems in the block.
On 17 August 2022, the resident sent the landlord an email which read “can you please give me a straight answer no more lies no more crap what is happing”. The landlord responded and said it was not sure it “liked the tone” of the residents email and said it had never lied to the resident. It gave an update on the alleged perpetrators and said it could ask another colleague to “take over the reigns” if the resident was not happy with what it was doing.
The resident made a formal complaint on 29 August 2022 about the ongoing ASB at the property. He said the property was advertised “specifically for families with young children or adults with disabilities”. He detailed 3 alleged perpetrators and generalised the ASB which they created. He advised the police had been at the block every week since he had moved in and described it as an “unhealthy and volatile environment”. He stated the landlord refused to install CCTV so he had purchased a ring doorbell as a means to gather evidence.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 31 August 2022 and advised it could not deal with the ASB through the complaint process but would investigate how his ASB complaint had been handled. It said it would respond by 14 September 2022.
The landlord sent a holding email on 14 September 2022 and advised it would provide a full response by 29 September 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 29 September 2022. Within this response the landlord advised it had found that “the actions taken, and communication made” with the resident were in accordance with its ASB policy but acknowledged that the service had in part “fallen down”. The landlord advised:
1. A thorough investigation into the ASB had been ongoing since October 2021.
2. As a social landlord it must consider a number of factors when taking action.
3. It had served a resident with a section 21 notice and they no longer resided in the block.
4. It could have implemented “internal measures earlier”.
5. It could not compensate for the days the resident chose to stay away from the property.
6. It had reminded staff of the required service levels.
The resident requested the complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 2 October 2022. He stated the ASB had been going on before October 2021 and even though 1 perpetrator had left there were still “major issues”. He said he had reported issues almost daily and not been taken seriously. Although he understood a process would need to be followed, he said “things won’t change unless solutions are put in place”. He said a lot of evidence around the problems was sent in last week and no one had visited to follow up on this.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 4 October 2022.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 18 October 2022. The landlord advised after it had reviewed the complaint it believed its stage 1 response to be “fair”. The landlord detailed its findings of its review as follows:
1. It confirmed the resident had been in regular contact since May 2021 about the ASB he experienced and the landlord took appropriate action in response.
2. It said with time it became “evident” that the action it took became “ineffective”.
3. Following this the investigation started in October 2021 which resulted in gaining possession of a property within the block in September 2022.
4. The request for video evidence was not because the ASB reports were “disbelieved” but should any legal action be pursued, robust evidence could be relied upon. This was alongside other forms of evidence gathered.
5. It had visited the block each week where possible since February 2022, a total of 22 visits were made. It did attend following the residents recent reports.
6. It confirmed 1 resident used marijuana for medical reasons and it therefore could not enforce an end to the behaviour.
7. It advised pursuing the legal tools available as a step that would only be pursued after non-legal remedies had been attempted but failed.
8. It appreciated being a victim of ASB could impact enormously on someone’s ability to feel comfortable in their own home but the resident had decided to stay away from the property through choice not for safety, which is why it would not compensate the rent for this time.
The resident approached this service on 29 October 2022 and advised he was seeking compensation for the stress he had endured as he was not able to enjoy his home, staying with relatives on many occasions.

Assessment and findings

The resident has said he considers that the situation with the ASB has directly impacted his wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the residents comments. However, it is beyond the authority of the Ombudsman to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the complaint and the resident’s physical or mental wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports that they experienced because of any failings by the landlord.

The landlords response to the residents reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).

Having considered the information supplied to this investigation, it is important to note that it is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it had received and whether it had followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account all of the circumstances of the case.
Where a landlord investigates ASB, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to make it very clear from the outset what actions it will take to investigate the reports. Equally as important, the landlord must also manage a residents expectations as to what action it can take, as the actions available to it may fall short of a resident’s preferred resolution. The landlord’s ASB policy echoes this approach and notes it will create an action plan for its investigation with the complainant. No evidence has been seen to show the landlord had agreed an action plan with the resident when the ASB cases against various perpetrators were opened, it therefore failed to follow its own policy.
In this case, it is evident the landlord took appropriate action towards the perpetrators in response to the resident’s ASB reports. It provided evidence of warning letters being sent, signed acceptable behaviour contracts, external agency referrals, and proportionality assessments. It therefore demonstrated that it fulfilled obligations to consider and respond to the ASB reports in a timely and reasonable manner. Although the landlord provided extensive evidence of the actions it took towards the perpetrators of the ASB, no evidence has been seen that it communicated regularly and managed the residents expectations alongside these actions. On the 18 July 2022, the landlord made reference in an email, to conversations and said, “as I keep telling you and the others, it’s not a quick process getting someone evicted”. No evidence has been seen to show when these conversations took place and what was discussed which may indicate record keeping issues.
The landlords ASB policy says it will put victims first and although the landlord has evidenced it took action to tackle the ASB, it has not demonstrated that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and took appropriate and proportionate actions to ensure that he was provided support. No evidence has been seen to show a risk assessment was carried out to identify the effect the reported ASB was having on the resident. This should be the starting point of a case management approach to dealing with ASB. The welfare, safety and wellbeing of victims must be the main consideration at every stage of the process.
A victim risk assessment was provided but had no name detailed and the property address redacted so it would be reasonable to conclude this was not a risk assessment which related to the resident. As risk can fluctuate, it is good practice to review a risk assessment on a regular basis, after a serious incident, or before closing a case. In this case it would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer additional support. Its only record of support offered was dated 17 July 2022, when it advised it could not offer a full time contact for the resident to call. Its ASB policy says it will ensure that those suffering as a result of the ASB are supported, this could be through regular contact or a referral to the witness support service. It is not clear why the landlord did not have these measures in place for the resident in this case. Furthermore the residents claims of not feeling safe in the building whilst his neighbours were away seemed to go unacknowledged which is not appropriate.
In the few email responses which are included in the landlord’s casefile, the language used towards the resident at times was emotive and inappropriate. It is acknowledged that dealing with ASB between residents can be frustrating however a level of professionalism is expected from a landlord. On 18 July 2022 the landlord told the resident it was “disappointed” he felt there had been a lack of action as in fact it had done a lot. On 17 August 2022, in response to the residents email, which it is acknowledged was not in itself entirely appropriate but showed the desperation the resident felt in experiencing ASB, the landlord responded in a defensive manner. It said it could ask another colleague to “take over the reigns” if the resident was not happy with what it was doing.
Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s ASB reports was reasonable, considering all the circumstances of the case. The landlord took reasonable action to tackle the ASB reported. Within its complaint responses, which are noted to have been provided within its policy timescales, the landlord advised it had acted and communicated in line with its ASB policy. However, no evidence has been seen that it fully followed it ASB policy, agreeing an action plan with the resident and taking his vulnerabilities into account. It would have been fair, proportionate and reasonable for it to communicate more regularly to the resident and ensure he was supported sufficiently throughout.

The landlords record keeping.

Throughout the landlord’s ASB investigation its record keeping of the communication to the victim was poor. No evidence of diary sheets have been seen nor has any record communication to the resident asking for such measures. It is not clear from the landlord’s case file notes what actions were taken as the notes attached to actions do not correlate with the prescribed action, for example a log for an acknowledgement letter has notes relating to an internal request for blocking a loft hatch detailed in the case notes. Based on the recorded communication with the resident there are only a few references to emails it had sent. The landlord provided detail of contacts from its customer relation management system which showed the resident contacted on numerous occasions between February 2022 and October 2022. Although callbacks look to have been recorded no detail to record what was discussed with the resident on each call has been seen.
Clear record keeping is core to a housing management service and assists the landlord in fulfilling its obligations. In ASB case management, accurate, complete, and accessible records ensure that the landlord can understand what is required at any time, monitor outstanding actions, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. A system should be in place to maintain accurate records of reports of ASB, its responses, inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlords record keeping.

Reasons

There was service failure as the landlord did not demonstrate it followed its ASB policy. It took appropriate action to try and resolve the situation, but it did not take into account the impact of the ASB on the resident. No evidence has been seen of an action plan, a risk assessment or adequate support offered. Its actions were not reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances of this case.
The landlord should have a system in place to maintain accurate records of reports of ASB, its responses, inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident in total £200, to include:
1. £100 for the failures identified in its handling of the residents reports of ASB.
2. £100 for its poor record keeping.
The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above order within 4 weeks of this determination.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must initiate and complete a management review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan that must be shared with this Service outlining at minimum its review findings in respect of:
1. Its intention and a timescale to complete a self-assessment using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023).
2. Its intention and a timescale to review its record keeping processes, and ensure its staff are fully aware of the landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these in cases such as this.
The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above order within 12 weeks of this determination.