Woking Borough Council (202206712)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206712

Woking Borough Council

22 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and harassment;
2. Concerns about a closure warning letter;
3. Reports that it tried to obtain medical information without his consent;
4. Complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, this service must consider all the circumstances of the case. This is because there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The Ombudsman has carefully considered all the evidence, and the resident’s complaint that the landlord sought to obtain medical information without his consent is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In his stage 1 complaint, the resident stated that the landlord had approached his community psychiatric nurse to make enquiries about him. He said that this was “unlawful” because he had only given permission to the police to access his medical records.
The matter was considered through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The landlord stated in its stage 1 complaint that it took advice from mental health practitioners. This was to assist in its understanding of the resident’s condition, and how it may affect and influence his behaviour. It did not conclude that there had been an attempted data breach.
The resident subsequently contacted the Service as he was unhappy with the response he had received from the landlord. While the serious nature of this complaint is acknowledged, this is not a matter the Ombudsman can consider. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is an independent body set up to uphold information rights. It has the power to investigate data breaches, to assess whether an organisation has failed to comply with the relevant data handling provisions, and to make orders aimed at putting things right. Paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
It follows that, if the resident remains unhappy with how the landlord responded to his concerns, and the actions that it took in response, he should refer the matter to the ICO accordingly. While we have not investigated the resident’s complaint about the landlord seeking to obtain medical information, they have been referred to in the report below for the purpose of providing context.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a joint secure tenant in a 2 bedroom semi-detached property, owned by the landlord. He and his partner moved into the property in December 2013. The resident has a diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), which the landlord was aware of during the complaint.
The resident is represented at times by his partner, who has consent to act on his behalf. For the sake of clarify, both the resident and his representative will be referred to as ‘the resident’.
At the time the resident raised his complaint, his tenancy was being managed by an agency acting on behalf of the landlord. As of 1 April 2022, the landlord assumed full management of all the properties under its ownership.
The resident contacted the landlord by email on 26 September 2019. He raised an issue regarding a disagreement with his neighbour about shared access to the back of his property. He also raised concern that his housing manager had not properly challenged one of his neighbours about the way he expressed himself and the language he had used.
On 26 September 2019, the landlord responded by letter with suggestions on how it could address the shared access issue. It also explained that challenging the resident’s neighbour would not have produced a positive outcome and that it had to assess the intent of his language against the reasonableness of any enforcement action.
The resident made numerous reports of ASB from his neighbour from July 2019 and April 2020. The reports included the neighbour shouting “obscene language”, laughing and sticking her finger up, poking her tongue out, “name calling” and appearing to film the resident. Following a request by the resident, the landlord arranged a Community Trigger panel meeting. This took place on 27 May 2020.
After the Community Trigger meeting, the landlord wrote to the resident on 3 June 2020 with its findings. In its letter, it stated that:
1. The panel consisted of representation from each of the agencies to which the resident had submitted ASB reports;
2. The purpose of the meeting was to focus on what could be done to prevent further incidents of ASB, whereby the resident was the victim;
3. Although mediation had been offered, the landlord had not fully explained how it worked and all the benefits it could provide. The panel identified a support coaching program that was run by a local mediation service as being appropriate. This was because it did not require face to face meetings with any parties outside the resident’s household and would provide additional support;
4. The borough ran a community mentor scheme, which the resident could consider. This would give him an additional person in the community that could assist him with advice and be a point of contact for any issues that fell outside the remit of the police or landlord;
5. The panel felt that, having a nominated individual from each agency as the resident’s point of contact would reduce the chances of repeated incidents being overlooked. The landlord would provide the resident with the full contact details of its single point of contact (SPOC);
6. It was identified by the panel that several incidents occurred as a result of the resident approaching an individual as he felt they were acting inappropriately;
7. The landlord would offer an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement (ABA) to the resident and any other party he identified as causing ASB. The terms of each agreement would be specific to the individual with regard to their behaviour. This would allow both the landlord and police to clearly identify the source and cause of any further incidents;
8. The panel noted that the resident felt he had not received a full update on some occasions. In order to resolve this, the landlord would update the resident in writing, where possible, following any incident report or contact;
9. The panel felt that, should the resident take up the offer of support, and work with the police and landlord in accordance with the agreed action plan, it would succeed in preventing the resident from being subjected to further ASB.
On 8 June 2020, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the ASB issues and the actions agreed during the Community Trigger meeting. The resident stated that he did not want to sign the ABA as he did not feel he had done anything wrong. The landlord explained the purpose of the ABA and that his neighbour would also be asked to sign one, but the resident still declined. The landlord also offered the resident support from the coaching programme. He stated that he could speak to his family about any issues he was experiencing.
The landlord emailed the resident on 16 June 2020 following receipt of ASB incident sheets and advised him to continue logging any incidents as per usual. It stated that it would speak to his neighbour with regard to the incident he had reported.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 June 2020 to say he had not received a response to the latest incident sheet he had submitted. The landlord stated that no further sheets had arrived and that it had recorded all the ones it had received. It sent the resident confirmation of all the incident numbers it had logged.
The landlord visited the resident on 25 June 2020 to discuss the ongoing ASB issues and mentioned mediation, which the resident said he would think about. The resident signed the ABA as part of the Community Panel action plan. The landlord contacted the resident on 6 July 2020 to let him know that his neighbour had also signed an ABA.
On 10 July 2020, the landlord visited the resident to discuss the use of the communal area between his and his neighbour’s property, and ongoing ASB reports. It explained a solution it had come up with so that the shared communal area could be used by both parties and the gardens could be used privately. The landlord reported that the resident had become aggressive and that this was witnessed by neighbours.
The resident reported further ASB incidents on 22 July 2020 and 15 February 2021. The landlord responded to the resident on 15 February 2021 to say it was working with the Community Trigger panel to try and reach a resolution for all concerned. It invited the resident to suggest ways he felt it could help him and said it had “lots of non-legal remedies” that it could utilise in most cases of neighbour disputes. These included mediation or coaching sessions, but stated that the resident had said he did not wish to participate in either of these. It added that the next steps would involve legal action, which would have to be reasonable and proportionate.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 21 March 2021, in which he stated:
1. The harassment he experienced initially started with “disparaging remarks and disrespectful comments”. It then progressed to “name calling, rude gestures, spitting, threats and physical assaults”;
2. He had taken “every possible measure” to stop the harassment and involved the police and landlord, and had increased his home security. There had been over 30 incidents, all of which he had reported. Despite attending many meetings and sending countless emails, nothing had been done to “stop the perpetrator’s behaviour”;
3. In 2020,he requested a Community Trigger but this did not resolve matters. In January 2021 the landlord recommended another Community Trigger with the additional support of a national charity.After obtaining legal advice, he declined. In his opinion “it would have been another wasted 6 months”;
4. The abuse continued as usual and he was left completely unprotected, with his life and wellbeing constantly at risk;
5. Over the previous 2 years, he had provided several pieces of video footage showing the perpetrator’s behaviour. Unfortunately, in most cases, the landlord told the resident the evidence was insufficient and took no action;
6. The previous year, a witness saw one of the incidents and was willing to make a statement. The landlord ignored the information for months and never took a statement;
7. During his last phone consultation with his community psychiatric nurse, he was told that the landlord had enquired about him. He said this was “unlawful” as he had only given permission for the police to access his medical records;
8. He wanted the neighbour to stop approaching him and his property, and for her background to be checked as he believed he was “not her first victim”;
9. He wanted the landlord to contact the witness so a statement could be taken;
10. He wanted to know why the landlord had attempted to obtain details of his medical conditions without his consent.
On 25 March 2021, the landlord sent the resident an ASB closure warning letter. It stated that, despite previous warnings, he had continued to behave in an antisocial manner. It added that the notice was being served on him in respect of the ASB and on-going complaints from the community about his behaviour. The landlord was working in partnership with other agencies, such as the police and were considering applying for a Closure Order under Section 80 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 to be made against the resident’s property.
In response to ongoing ASB reports, the landlord and partner agencies attended a further Community Trigger meeting on 4 May 2021 to agree another action plan. The landlord agreed it would take the following actions:
1. It would check available properties for a management move and make an offer subject to the landlord’s policies;
2. Check its policies to ensure the approved course of action did not prevent other options being explored in the future;
3. Complete a proportionality assessment for the resident.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 June 2021 to apologise for the time it had taken it to formally acknowledge his complaint. It explained that this was due to ongoing work with partner agencies to try and resolve the ASB. It had also been waiting for “a formal decision from the Housing Ombudsman on a similar complaint”.
On 11 June 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to add several more points to his existing complaint. These were as follows:
1. The resident wanted to know why he had been served with a section 80 notice when he had done nothing wrong;
2. He wanted to know what evidence was used to issue a section 80 notice. He stated that this was an example of “disability discrimination” and he would be taking legal action;
3. He wanted to know why the staff could not attend his properly on their own and why the landlord always attended with the police;
4. He wanted to know why no action was taken against his neighbour when he had provided lots of video evidence;
The resident wrote again to the landlord on 14 June 2021 to raise further concerns, which were as follows:
1. The landlord had told him that the Community Trigger would be put back to the week beginning 7 June 2021 but he had heard nothing more about this;
2. The resident said that the ASB Officer was not the “right person to do this job” as he had been “discriminating” against him for over a year;
3. The landlord had a policy that it would not let vulnerable people be harassed or suffer discriminating behaviour, yet it did nothing when the resident had provided proof of this behaviour;
4. The ASB Officer had failed to answer questions from a solicitor;
5. The resident wanted to know who had told a neighbour that she could use both gates and why the landlord had attempted to enter his property the previous week, without asking.
The landlord replied on 17 June 2021 to confirm that the points the resident had raised in his emails of 14 and 17 June 2021 had been added to his complaint.
On 2 July 2021, the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response, which stated:
1. Together with the police, it had tried to offer support. As part of the first Community Trigger in 2020, the multi-agency group considered and reviewed the incidents the resident had reported in the previous 6 months;
2. It had offered a mediation service that did not require face to face meetings with any parties outside of the resident’s household, and was designed to provide additional support. In addition, it offered to refer the resident to a local community mentor scheme and provided him with single points of contact for the relevant partner agencies;
3. The resident had provided video footage for some of the incidents he had reported. On each occasion, it had been reviewed, often by a multi-agency group, but was not considered sufficient to progress further action against the neighbour. This was because the footage only showed a “snapshot” of the incident but did “not put the whole incident into context”;
4. The resident had provided recent evidence showing the neighbour making verbally abusive comments. As a result, the police spoke to them and it was felt that the incident was sufficient to escalate to a full Community Protection Notice. This had recently been served and any further incidents that occur would be a breach of the notice and therefore considered for prosecution;
5. This information had been included in the update provided on the most recent Community Trigger action plan, which was sent to the resident’s solicitor on 16 June 2021;
6. As the resident had recently given instructions for all updates to be provided to his solicitor only and not directly to him, this was why the ASB Officer had not sent him any recent updates;
7. The information provided by the resident’s witness was discussed between the landlord and partner agencies. It was decided that the information provided was not sufficient enough to progress the resident’s reports;
8. The ASB Officer took advice from mental health practitioners to assist the landlord’s understanding of the resident’s condition and how it affected and influenced his behaviour;
9. With regard to the Section 80, the landlord stated that the resident was referring to the Section 76(6) letter that it had served. The letter stated that the landlord was considering the use of a house closure under Section 80 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014. This letter was served as part of the relevant process;
10. The Section 76(6) letter was served after the police had provided the landlord with the impact statements of other residents. These identified the resident as the perpetrator of ASB towards his neighbours. The impact statements were taken prior to the receipt of the second Community Trigger and this process was put on hold in order to complete the Community Trigger. The statements were taken in March 2021 and the letter was served on 12 April 2021;
11. The Section 76(6) letter was not served as a result of specific incidents but as a result of additional information that was provided. This suggested that the resident was the main source of ASB within the area;
12. The ASB Officer had only attended the property on a few occasions. This was to serve some informal paperwork agreed as part of a multi-agency response. He had also attended to serve formal notices, such as the Section 76 letter. On those occasions, the police were in attendance in order to record the serving of notices in case any proof was required;
13. The gates were in communal areas and available for all residents to use. The landlord had visited the area to look at the communal areas and did not try to access the resident’s property.
Following receipt of the landlord’s response, the resident wrote to it to escalate his complaint. The date of the escalation request is unclear; however, the landlord included a copy of his email in its stage 2 response letter. It stated:
1. The resident had made his complaint on 21 March 2021 but the landlord’s complaints procedure stated it would respond within 20 working days;
2. He had chased up his complaint a number of times and was told the landlord would call him back. It never did;
3. The response mentioned the first Community Trigger but the landlord did nothing when the resident’s neighbour breached her ABA;
4. The only thing the landlord did was to serve a Criminal Behaviour Order on the resident. No dates, times or proof was given other than the fact the ASB Officer did not like him and thought his behaviour was due to his autism. This was disability discrimination;
5. The landlord’s assertion that the neighbour called the resident names because she was reacting to seeing a phone camera was “totally untrue”;
6. The landlord did not have his permission to contact any of his medical providers;
7. The Section 76 was served yet again with no proof, because the neighbour and their friends had made up stories about him and wanted to get him evicted;
8. It was untrue that the landlord was only checking the communal area because it had tried to open the resident’s gate;
9. The ASB Officer never brought the police when he visited his neighbour’s house but always did so when he visited the resident’s property. This was a further example of discrimination;
10. The landlord had never spoken to the resident’s witness.
On 21 July 2021, the landlord sent the resident a response, which stated:
1. It had carefully considered the resident’s complaint and reviewed all the correspondence between him and the landlord. It considered that the resident had received a full response to his complaint and that all matters he had raised had been properly addressed;
2. It had provided “a very full and comprehensive response” and had addressed all the relevant points the resident had raised. It did not consider that there were grounds for the resident’s complaint to be “passed to a member of the landlord’s Corporate Leadership Team for further consideration”;
3. It was satisfied that it had sufficient knowledge and understanding of the complaint to consider and determine it in a fair manner. It did not consider there was the need to discuss it further in person or by phone;
4. It considered that the complaint had been dealt with in accordance with the landlord’s procedure;
5. It provided information on how the resident could refer his complaint to the Ombudsman.
The resident wrote to the Service on 23 August 2022 to ask it to investigate his complaint. He stated that the landlord had not properly followed its procedures. The landlord had asked him to sign an ABA on the basis that his neighbour would not approach him. Even through the neighbour had breached the agreement, the landlord had not taken any action. He added that he was very unhappy about the “false accusations” by the landlord in response to his complaint.
The resident wrote to the Service on 31 December 2023 to report that he continued to experience ASB from his neighbour and that this was causing him severe stress and anxiety.

Assessment and findings

Scope of complaint

The Ombudsman notes the resident’s feeling that the landlord has discriminated against him. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear of the resident’s concerns, it is beyond our remit to determine a legal finding of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. This would be a matter for the courts to determine, where appropriate evidence could be given and the relevant legislation applied to the circumstances. While we cannot make findings of discrimination, we have considered whether the landlord has treated the resident fairly, according to its policies, procedures and good practice.

ASB

It is noted from the records that there is a long history of ASB reports from the resident about his neighbour. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because 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 has focussed on the period from 27 May 2020 onwards. Reference to events that occurred prior to this date is made in this report to provide context
The Ombudsman recognises that the resident has reported ASB for a significant period of time and that the situation has had a profound impact on him. However, when considering complaints relating to ASB, it is not the role of the Service to reach a decision on whether ASB has occurred. Instead, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps, in line with its policies and procedures, to investigate the reports and if it took proportionate action.
It is relevant to acknowledge that ASB cases involving reports and counter-allegations over an extended period of time, sometimes with limited or no corroborating evidence, can be among the most difficult for a landlord to manage. That difficulty is not the fault of any party, but it is important our assessment of the landlord’s actions recognises this fact.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will promptly respond to incidents of ASB perpetrated by its residents. Its aim is to ensure an efficient and consistent approach in dealing with such incidents. The landlord will consider a number of remedies available to it to deal with ASB . This includes ASB Orders, Demoted Tenancies, Acceptable Behaviour Contracts, Injunctions, Possession Orders and Abatement Notices under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
The ASB policy also states that the landlord receives many complaints of minor disputes or disturbances that are either uncorroborated or a minor breach of a tenancy condition, or both. In such cases the landlord will encourage neighbours to resolve minor disputes among themselves. It may also refer them to other agencies, if appropriate, such as the Mediation Service. The landlord will also implement both proactive and preventative measures, such as physical improvements to dwellings and communal areas. It will actively take part in initiatives to tackle ASB, including joint agency working with the police or other agencies.
The landlord’s website states that, if a resident is a victim of ASB and does not feel the incidents they reported to the police or other agencies had been dealt with, they can apply for a Community Trigger. This is a request to review the resident’s case. A Community Trigger brings agencies together to take a joined up approach to finding a solution to ASB. These agencies share information, review what action was taken and decide whether additional actions are possible.
The evidence shows that the landlord acted appropriately in its efforts to gather evidence to substantiate the resident’s ASB reports. The records indicate that the landlord made visits to and spoke with the neighbour on a number of occasions to discuss the resident’s reports. In addition, it took appropriate action when it had found that the neighbour had breached a Community Protection Notice. It is evident the resident was sending the landlord regular diary sheets and video evidence, which it had examined together with the partner agencies it was working with. In addition, the records show that the landlord appropriately took a multi-agency approach. It also took steps to try and suggest making alterations to communal areas in order to resolve the issues that were causing tensions between the resident and his neighbour.
Although it is unclear what date the resident made a request for a Community Trigger, it was appropriate that the landlord responded to this, and arranged a panel meeting in May 2020. The landlord was correct to agree an action plan during the meeting. It also acted appropriately when it sent the resident a letter, a week after the meeting, informing him about the outcome of the Community Trigger and providing details of the action plan.
The evidence shows that the landlord complied with the action plan. It provided the resident with a single point of contact (SPOC) for any ongoing ASB reports. The SPOC made contact with the resident, following receipt of incident reports, as was agreed in the action plan. The records show that it also logged each incident and provided the relevant incident report numbers to the resident. In addition, the evidence shows that the landlord worked with the resident and his neighbour to agree Acceptable Behaviour Arrangements and offered mediation and other support that took appropriate account of the resident’s vulnerabilities. The records indicate that the landlord took reasonable steps to respond to the resident’s reports of ASB following the first Community Trigger and correctly followed its ASB policy.
There is no evidence to show that the landlord had shared the outcome of the second Community Trigger with the resident following the meeting on 4 May 2021. The landlord has not been able to demonstrate that it discussed the proposed actions with him or that it had followed through with some of the actions it had agreed in the second Community Trigger meeting. This was a failing.
The landlord appropriately issued a Community Protection Notice to the resident’s neighbour, which was one of the proposed actions. However, the records do not indicate whether or not it had discussed a possible management move with the resident or that it had checked available properties. The landlord had agreed to do this, and it is unclear why it did not. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to update us on its actions in relation to this.
There is nothing to show that the landlord completed a proportionality assessment by 11 June 2021, as agreed in the Community Trigger action plan. It is not clear from the evidence what proposed action the proportionality assessment was related to or whether it was linked to the landlord’s intentions to issue a closure notice. It is unclear whether a proportionality assessment was undertaken. Given that this action was agreed as part of the Community Trigger, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to complete the assessment and to keep a clear record of the outcome. We have therefore asked the landlord to confirm whether such an assessment was undertaken. And if so, what the outcome was. If any assessment was not undertaken, the landlord should provide a clear explanation as to why.

Closure warning letter

The evidence shows that the landlord issued the resident with a Section 76 letter (Closure Warning Letter) under Section 80 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the Act). The Act states that a closure notice may be issued only if reasonable efforts have been made to inform any person who has control of or responsibility for the premises, or who has an interest in them that the notice is going to be issued.
The evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord took reasonable steps to inform the resident about the notice prior to issuing it. In addition, there is no indication that it had explained the notice to the resident at the time, or the reason it was issued. The landlord has not demonstrated that it took an incremental approach prior to issuing a closure warning letter. It is unclear why the landlord proceeded to issue a closure warning letter. The evidence does not show that it considered offering the resident a management move as agreed as part of the Community Trigger process. In addition, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it had explored whether serving a closure notice would be a reasonable or proportionate course of action to take in the circumstances.
Given the nature of the resident’s vulnerabilities, it is understandable that the serving of the warning letter without any prior notification would have caused the resident significant distress and confusion. It is not evident that the landlord provided the him with proper clarification for why the notice was issued, or that it gave him any specific details of the evidence it had used to make its decision.
If the landlord had taken steps to discuss the warning, it could have provided further explanation about its decision, and answered any questions the resident may have had.. This would have demonstrated a more customer-focused approach and helped build trust between it and the resident. It was only when the landlord issued its stage 1 response that it gave some indication on why the notice was issued. That the landlord did not communicate appropriately with the resident about the closure warning letter was maladministration.

Complaint

The landlord’s Complaints Policy states that it will acknowledge and log stage 1 complaints within 5 working days of receipt. The policy also states that the landlord will provide residents with a full response within 20 working days. It adds that a complaint might be more complex and require further investigation, which may make the 20 day response target difficult to meet. In such cases, it will let the resident know what is happening and advise them when it hoped to respond.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that landlords must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. If an extension beyond 20 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties.
The resident first complained on 21 March 2021 and the landlord sent an acknowledgement on 7 June 2021. This means that it took the landlord nearly 3 months to acknowledge the resident’s complaint. This demonstrates excessively protracted complaint handling.
In its acknowledgement of the resident’s stage 1 complaint, the landlord stated that its delay in acknowledging the complaint was due to two factors. It said the delay in responding was due to ongoing work with partner agencies to resolve the ASB and because the landlord was waiting on the Ombudsman’s decision on another complaint. Neither of these factors should delay acknowledging a formal complaint. The ongoing work by landlords to resolve ASB issues should continue normally, without affecting the timescales as set by the complaints process. In addition, there is no reason why an investigation by the Ombudsman of a separate complaint should hamper the acknowledgment of a new complaint. That the landlord departed significantly from the Code and its own complaints process was maladministration.
It should be noted that, once the landlord acknowledged the complaint, the resident made requests on 11 and 14 June 2021 to add additional concerns to his existing complaint. This does explain why the progression of the complaint subsequently delayed, and it was appropriate for the landlord to agree to include the additional concerns. Once it received them, it sent its response within 14 working days, which was outside the timescale set out in the Code. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to confirm that it would include the resident’s comments from 11 and 14 June 2021 as part of its consideration of that complaint and, in doing so, explained that this would result in its complaint response being delayed.
The landlord refers to stage 2 of its complaints process in its policy as a ‘stage 2 appeal’. It states that, for stage 2 appeals, it will aim to acknowledge and log the appeal request within 5 working days of receipt. It states that a stage 2 appeal must meet at least one of the following criteria:
1. The landlord made its decision based on inaccurate facts that could change its decision;
2. The resident has new and relevant information that was not previously available and might change the landlord’s decision;
3. It overlooked or misunderstood parts of the complaint or did not take account of relevant information which could change its decision.
The Code states that, if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure. In instances where a landlord declines to escalate a complaint, it must clearly communicate in writing its reasons for not escalating as well as the resident’s right to approach the Ombudsman about its decision.
There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request, which was a further departure from its procedure, and the Code. However, it did provide a response within 20 working days that clearly communicated its reasons for not escalating the complaint, as well as outlining the resident’s right to approach the Ombudsman. In this way, the landlord did comply with the Code in response to the resident’s request to escalate his complaint to stage 2.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and harassment;
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a closure warning letter;
In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint that the landlord tried to obtain the resident’s medical information without his consent is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction;
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

Although the landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports of ASB was reasonable on the whole, it could not demonstrate that it followed up on all the actions from the second Community Trigger. It could not evidence why it did not complete a proportionality assessment as it had agreed in its action plan.
The way the landlord issued a closure warning letter was heavy-handed. It failed to communicate properly with the resident prior to issuing the ASB closure warning letter, or to take his vulnerabilities into account before issuing the letter.
The landlord took around 3 months to acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint and failed to acknowledge his escalation request. Its reasons for the delay in acknowledging the stage 1 complaint were inappropriate and it did not write to the resident to provide any reasons for its delay, or to agree any new timescales.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of receiving this determination, the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident total compensation of £750. This is comprised of:
  1. £150 in recognition of its failure to properly discuss the outcome of the second Community Trigger with the resident or explain why it did not complete a proportionality assessment in accordance with the action plan;
  2. £300 in recognition of the distress caused by the landlord’s poor communication around the closure warning letter;
  3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the poor complaint handling.
2. Provide, with a copy to the Ombudsman, an apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for the failings identified in the report;
3. The landlord is ordered to contact the resident to confirm if there are details about his condition or other circumstances that he would like it to be aware of when arranging any support, and if there are any reasonable adjustments the resident would like the landlord to make. It should then ensure that its relevant systems are updated with any information the resident provides. The landlord to then confirm to the Ombudsman that this action has been completed.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report:
1. The landlord to undertake a review of how it follows its process for issuing closure notices, particularly in relation to its communication with residents. Specific attention should be paid to how the landlord communicates with residents before issuing closure warning letters. This is particularly relevant for residents who have vulnerabilities that mean the letters would cause them particular distress if sent without prior notification. The landlord to report back to the Ombudsman with the outcome of its review and any changes it has made as a result.
2. The resident has reported that he continues to experience ASB from his neighbour. The landlord to contact the resident and discuss what further actions it plans to take in response to these reports, and to consider whether there are any other measures it can take in order to provide any ongoing support. The landlord to report back to the Ombudsman with an action plan, detailing what further actions it intends to take.
3. The landlord to review its training to complaint handling staff, with emphasis on updating residents if there are delays in responding to complaints. The training should also emphasise the importance of acknowledging complaints in a timely manner, with particular focus on being fully conversant with and following the landlord’s own complaints process. The landlord to confirm it has carried out the review and provide details of any changes it has made in its training as a result.
4. The landlord had agreed to explore offering the resident a possible management move as part of the Community Trigger process. The landlord to update the Service on its actions in relation to this.
5. The landlord to confirm whether it had undertaken a proportionality assessment, as agreed as part of the Community Trigger process. If so, the landlord to provide the Service with details of the outcome. If any assessment was not undertaken, the landlord to provide a clear explanation as to why.