Trident Housing Association Limited (202013105)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013105

Trident Housing Association Limited

14 April 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:

1. handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), and;
2. handling of the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord under a tenancy that began in February 2017. The property is a five bedroomed house. The resident advised the Ombudsman that two children in the household have additional needs.
3. Between 2017 and 2021 the resident reported ASB originating from a neighbour’s property. The reports were drug dealing on the estate, verbal abuse and threatening behaviour directed towards the resident.
4. Throughout 2020 the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on several occasions to inform it that the resident was dissatisfied with its handling of the reports of ASB and asked the landlord to provide a formal response to the resident’s complaint. In response, the landlord telephoned the resident to provide information on what it was going to do but failed to log a complaint.
5. On January 14 and 18, 2021 respectively, the resident experienced a physical assault and criminal damage to his property and reported this to the landlord. The resident stated he was assaulted by the neighbour and the neighbour’s son was responsible for the criminal damage.
6. The landlord continued not to log a complaint and the Ombudsman issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) on 23 December 2021. The purpose of a CHFO is to ensure that a landlord’s complaint handling process is accessible, consistent, and enables the timely progression of complaints for residents in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
7. On 6 January 2022 the landlord issued a ‘final response’ to the resident. The landlord’s position was that no formal complaint had been received from the resident. The incidents of assault and criminal damage were police matters. It had communicated with the resident about the ASB issues, and it had worked with the police to obtain a priority move for the family. It had organised a trip fence to prevent vehicles and bicycles driving over the grass at the front of the property and there were no outstanding actions.
8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and again complained to this Service. The resident advised the Ombudsman the ASB is ongoing and to resolve the issue the resident wants to move away from the property.

Assessment and findings

9. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.

b. Put things right, and;

c. Learn from outcomes.

10. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.
11. The role of the Ombudsman in anti-social behaviour cases is not to determine whether the behaviour complained of occurred. Our role is to decide whether the landlord acted fairly in all the circumstances of the case considering the available evidence. We consider whether the landlord followed a reasonable course of action, in line with its policy and procedure.
12. It is also noted that as an outcome to the complaint, the resident wanted to move properties. The Ombudsman is unable to direct the landlord to move the resident to a specific property, as the landlord can only offer properties based on the availability of suitable properties and taking into account other applicants who also have an urgent need to be moved.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

13. The landlord’s records show the resident reported anti-social behaviour since 2017. However, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the reports of physical assault on the resident on 14 January 2021 and criminal damage to the resident’s property on 18 January 2021.
14. The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy states ‘Criminal Offences such as, (but not limited to) threatening behaviour, harassment, hate crime, assault, arson, and/or drug related should be reported to both Trident and the Police immediately’. 
15. Accordingly, on 14 January 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to inform it of the assault on himself and his relative. The alleged perpetrator had been arrested and was a member of the neighbour’s household.
16. The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy categorises the use of violence or threat of violence as Category A-High. The policy also states, ‘All reports of ASB will be risk assessed and we will record on our case management module that a risk assessment has been carried out and the outcome’.
17. The landlord contacted the resident the next day however no evidence has been provided that it carried out a risk assessment and recorded the outcome on its case management module.
18. The ‘Providing support to those reporting ASB’ section of the landlord’s policy states ‘Vulnerability assessment will be undertaken as part of a risk assessment, ensuring the principles of the Equality Act are considered in any potential action’ and ‘We will draw up an action plan with the customer and keep them informed of our actions as agreed’.
19. No documents or evidence has been provided that a vulnerability assessment was undertaken or that an action plan was drawn up with the resident as set out in its ASB policy. 
20. The landlord advised the resident that it would contact the police to gain further information on the incidents. When it did so, the police told the landlord that an individual had been arrested and the investigation was ongoing.
21. At 11:30pm on 18 January 2021 an individual approached the resident’s property with an implement and smashed the living room windows. The resident called the police, and the matter was recorded as criminal damage. The resident reported the matter to the landlord and informed it that he believed the son of the neighbour was the alleged perpetrator.
22. The landlord’s records show the landlord telephoned the resident the next day.  No documents or evidence have been provided to show a risk assessment or vulnerability assessment was carried out and the outcome recorded on the landlord’s case management module, or an action plan drawn up with the resident.
23. The Landlords policy states ‘Trident understands the importance of safeguarding both children and vulnerable adults, such as those who are at risk of abuse, harassment and violence and, when dealing with ASB cases, staff takes into account safeguarding responsibilities and continue to work alongside partners to ensure that the appropriate support and protection is in place’.
24. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the impact of the incidents on the residents and children in the household or considered what its safeguarding responsibilities might be.
25. In the circumstances, the landlord let the resident down by not carrying out a risk assessment or vulnerability assessment of the household after the physical assault and criminal damage.
26. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence or record keeping that the alleged perpetrator was interviewed, or that witness statements were taken, or that interventions such as a community trigger or tenancy enforcement were considered. The landlord advised the resident that it planned to have a meeting, but it has not presented any minutes of any internal strategy meetings or meetings it may have held with other agencies such as the community safety partnership.
27. In its final response the landlord stated that it had worked with police to obtain a supporting letter for a priority move for the family. However, the evidence shows that the resident secured the supporting letter largely through his own efforts.
28. On 25 January 2021 the resident advised the landlord that he had footage of anti-social behaviour incidents on his phone. There is no record that the landlord took steps to view the footage. The landlord missed an opportunity to gather intelligence that could inform its case management and help it better understand the lived experience of the residents and wider community.
29. The resident advised the Ombudsman that for most of the time he did not have clarity on how the landlord’s investigation was progressing. This made him feel anxious, unsupported, and undermined his confidence in the landlord to the extent that he told the landlord that he would be contacting a solicitor to seek advice.
30. It did not carry out risk assessments or vulnerability assessments of the residents and children in the household after the assault and criminal damage to the property. This was a serious failing. It did not draw up a robust action plan and it failed to keep the resident updated.
31. The landlord had a duty to carry out appropriate and decisive action to deal with the ASB. Several weeks after the incidents the landlord told the resident that it was still waiting for police to provide information. The landlord was over reliant on the police to provide information instead of carrying out its own investigation.
32. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy states ‘Multi agency partnership working is vital for Trident Group to prevent and resolve ASB quickly and effectively. Trident Group is members (sic) of many Community Safety Partnerships who are made up of organisations such as the Police, Local Authorities, Health Services, Probation Services, Education, Fire Services, Youth Offending Services and other social housing providers’.
33. The landlord provides no record that it considered referring the case to the community safety partnership or that it effectively engaged the wider professional network to develop a strategy.
34. The Ombudsman has identified several areas where the landlord failed to carry out actions required by its antisocial behaviour policy and procedure. Accordingly, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
35. As a result, the resident experienced inconvenience, frustration, distress, and uncertainty. The landlord did not establish a communication plan with the resident and the resident had to telephone the landlord on several occasions to gain updates on his case. This undermined the landlord tenant relationship.
36. To put matters right, therefore, the landlord should pay £1000 to the resident. This amount is in line with this Service’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website), for cases where there has been maladministration which had a significant impact on the complainant. Furthermore, the landlord should carry out a risk assessment and vulnerability assessment of the household in accordance with its policy.

Handling of the associated complaint

37. The landlord’s ASB behaviour policy states ‘if a customer is unhappy with Trident’s response to a report of ASB and believes that the case has not been handled in accordance with our published policy and/or service standards, they have the right to make a service complaint and would be referred to our complaints policy for further information’.
38. In its letter to the resident dated 6 January 2022 the landlord’s position was that no formal complaint was received. This was not the case.
39. Throughout February 2021 the resident was persistent in his verbal expressions of dissatisfaction to the landlord about its handling of the ASB.
40. On 18 February 2021 the Ombudsman sent a letter to the landlord to notify the landlord that the resident had complained about its response to his reports of ASB.
41. On 24 February 2021 the residents MP contacted the landlord to notify it that the ASB was ongoing, and the resident was dissatisfied with the landlords handling of the ASB. 
42. Between February and December 2021, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on no less than five occasions to set out the terms of the resident’s complaint and asked the landlord to respond in accordance with the timescales in the Complaint Handling Code.
43.  In view of the multiple contacts the landlord received about the resident’s dissatisfaction it was unreasonable of the landlord not to initiate its complaints process.
44. The landlord’s complaint handling policy objectives are ‘Make the complaints procedure accessible; complaints can be made in person, by phone, email or in writing. We will accept complaints from and liaise with advocates acting on behalf of the complainant’.
45. In this regard, the landlord did not meet its policy objectives because it failed to recognise that a formal complaint was being made and the Ombudsman had to issue a Complaint Handling Failure Order to get the landlord to respond appropriately to the resident’s complaint.
46. The landlord eventually wrote to the resident on 6 January 2022 and called this its ‘final response’. This description was inappropriate because the resident’s complaint had never been logged and there had been no stage one complaint process.
47. The landlord does not appear to have assigned a complaints administrator in line with its policy, did not send out an acknowledgment, and did not follow its own procedure in respect of the complaint stages. Nor did it respond in a timely way to the Ombudsman’s requests to provide a formal response to the resident.
48. The landlord mismanaged the resident’s complaint from the outset that resulted in the resident experiencing unacceptable delays in getting his complaint correctly logged and caused the resident frustration, inconvenience, and distress.
49. Accordingly, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Determination (decision)

50. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
51. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

52. The landlord must apologise to the resident for the exceptionally poor handling of his complaint and for it’s handling of his reports of ASB. The landlord should consider issuing the apology directly from its chief executive.
53. Within one month of the date of this report the landlord is to pay the resident £1,350 compensation, comprising:
    1. £1000 for the failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
    2. £350 for the failings in its complaint handling.
54. The landlord to carry out a risk assessment and vulnerability assessment of the household in accordance with its ASB policy.
55. Contact the resident and review the current situation regarding the ASB. If the ASB is continuing, the landlord should agree an action plan with the resident setting out the next steps for addressing the ASB.
56. The landlord must review its complaint handling processes in accordance with the Complaint Handling Code and provide training to its staff accordingly.
57. The landlord to provide evidence that it has complied with the above orders no later than six weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

58. The landlord should support the resident with an assessment of the resident’s rehousing application.
59. The landlord should carry out a review of its actions on the resident’s ASB case to identify lessons it can learn from the case.