Housing 21 (202216267)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216267

Housing 21

07 May 2025

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 staff conduct.
2. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
3. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident had an assured tenancy for a flat, which began on 18 July 2022. The flat was within a block of flats with a shared laundry room, lounge and gardens. There was a housing manager on site to support residents.
The landlord is a housing association.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 17 October 2022. She raised the following issues:
1. The tone of a letter sent by the housing manager about her exercise bike and rent arrears.
2. The landlord published her name and address in the buildings newsletter.
3. Prejudice from other residents due to her race.
4. Her radiator cable needed to be secured.
5. Clarity on whether she can have a pet.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 3 November 2022. In its response it:
1. Apologised if the tone of its letter regarding the removal of her exercise bike and her rent arrears offended her. It would address this with the housing manager and ensure a softer tone is used in future correspondence.
2. Confirmed that the resident said she would make a payment towards her arrears and had instructed housing benefit to make payments directly to the landlord.
3. Said it discussed the resident’s concerns about racism and that it was committed to creating and sustaining an inclusive environment for all. It would send a letter to all resident’s reminding them about its respect charter.
4. Said it would keep her updated on the radiator repair.
5. Decides whether a resident can have a pet on a case-by-case basis. It provided the resident with a link to its pet policy and told her to contact the housing manager to fill in the relevant paperwork.
On 7 September 2023 we contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident and asked it to escalate her complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 5 October 2023. In its response it:
1. Confirmed the resident had said the radiator repair and her request for a pet had been resolved.
2. Said it was appropriate for the housing manager to send a stage 1 rent arrears letters. The housing officer explained in a covering letter that she sent a second letter in the first week of the tenancy? as it contained additional information about housing benefit.
3. Acknowledged it sent its stage 2 rent arrears letter within 6 days rather than 7 days. It apologised and offered the resident £25 compensation for the distressed caused.
4. Agreed the letter about the exercise bike was not courteous, however, it did not consider it to be threatening or alarming. The action it said it would take in its stage 1 response was appropriate and proportionate.
5. Apologised it published the resident’s personal details in the resident’s newsletter without her consent. It offered her £25 for any upset caused.
6. Confirmed it met with the resident on 1 November 2023 to discuss her concerns as promised.
7. Said it investigated the resident’s reports of ASB and issued a warning letter to all residents. The resident refused to meet with it to discuss the ASB further and refused mediation. It asked her to reconsider these options.
8. Said the resident did not qualify for a management transfer, however, it had given her a list of available properties she could move to under other schemes.

Events after the expiry of the landlord’s complaints procedure

On 6 December 2023 the resident told the landlord she had blocked emails from the housing manager and operations manager. In January 2024 she told the landlord she ‘wanted to be left alone’. In March 2024 she said the landlord’s request for meetings had become excessive and she would be seeking legal advice.
In September 2024 the resident moved into alternative accommodation through one of the landlord’s housing schemes.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has made several reports of ASB from her neighbours. This investigation has focussed on the issues the resident raised in her complaint to the landlord dated 17 October 2022. This investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of these issues from October 2022 to the end of its formal complaint’s procedure in October 2023.
We can consider whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action has caused any distress and inconvenience to the resident. However, we are unable to establish whether the resident health and wellbeing was impacted. This would be down to a court to decide.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of staff conduct

We find reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of staff conduct. The reasons for my findings are below.
The landlord’s arrears policy states that the housing manager is responsible for monitoring rent and service charge accounts. If a rent payment is missed the housing manager must resolve this with the resident directly and ensure the payment is made as soon as possible.
The policy states a letter will be issued to the resident by the housing manager after 1 week and again after 2 weeks of a missed payment. After 3-4 weeks it will issue a letter stating it would issue a notice seeking possession.
On 17 October 2022 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about her housing officer and said she felt she had a ‘vendetta against her’. The resident raised that the tone of letters sent to her were threatening, and her personal details were published in the building’s newsletter.
In her complaint the resident said she was told someone would visit her to discuss her concerns but no one did. The evidence shows the landlord contacted her on 26 and 27 October 2022. It arranged to meet the resident on 1 November 2022 to discuss her complaint issues. This showed the landlord wanted to put things right.
In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised that the resident was offended by its letter asking her to remove an exercise bike from the communal garden. The landlord acted reasonably by discussing the resident’s comments with the housing manager, who agreed to use a softer tone in future correspondence.
The evidence shows the landlord discussed the removal of the exercise bike with the resident and said it could ask other resident’s in the building if they would be happy for her to store her bike in the communal lounge. Although the resident agreed to this, she did not agree to the landlord publishing her name and addressing the building’s newsletter. It was reasonable for the resident to raise concerns about people outside the building reading the newsletter and obtaining her personal information. Although is not for us to ascertain whether the general data protection regulations (GDPR) were breached, as this is a matter for the Information Commissioners Office. The landlord should have acknowledged the potential GDPR breach and considered what action it could take to mitigate the breach and ensure it would not happen again.
The resident told the landlord the letters about her rent arrears were heavy handed and disproportionate. The housing officer sent the letters in line with its arrears policy. Although the resident said she did not like the tone of the letters, it was reasonable for the landlord to use template letters to ensure consistency for all residents. As a social landlord it also has limited time and resources.
The resident said she felt intimidated as the landlord sent 2 letters about her arrears in the first week. Although its policy states it will only send one letter, the landlord explained to the resident it was sending a second letter so it could offer her advice about housing benefit and offer support with her rent arrears.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that it sent a rent arrears letter a day earlier than it should have. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging and apologising to the resident that it had breached its arrears policy.
In summary the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about its staff’s conduct. It provided clear explanations about why its housing manager took the action she did. It agreed to consider a softer approach with its communication and fed back the resident’s comments about the template letters. Although it did not discuss the potential GDPR breach in its complaint response. It did apologise and offer a total of£50 compensation for sending a letter outside the timescales in its arrears policy and for publishing the resident’s personal details. This amount was in line with its compensation policy. The landlord did show it had learnt from the complaint and wanted to put things right. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to ensure its newsletters are compliant with the GDPR and its staff are appropriately trained.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

We find no maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The reasons for my findings are below.
It is not our role to decide whether ASB has occurred or who is responsible. We will investigate whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of ASB in line with its policies and procedures, and whether it acted reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s ASB policy states it will respond to reports of ASB within 5 working days. It states neighbour disputes and disagreements about lifestyle differences should be something that residents resolve themselves. It would unlikely categorise this as ASB.
Its policy states any actions relating to an individual’s personal characteristics as defined in the Equality Act 2010 (e.g. race), will be categorised as ASB.
On 26 October 2022 the resident reported that her neighbours were discriminating against her due to her race. She said she kept getting locked out in the garden and some resident’s were ignoring her. The landlord responded to the resident on 27 October 2022, which was within its 5 working day timescale. As the resident did not have any evidence of who was shutting the fire door and consequently locking her out in the garden, it was appropriate the landlord sent a letter to all resident’s reminding them of its respect charter.
On 25 January 2023 the resident reported verbal abuse from some of her neighbours and persons visiting them. As the resident had previously mentioned she felt the ASB was due to her race, the landlord acted appropriately by opening an ASB case on 26 January 2023. The landlord took witness statements from all persons involved and visited the resident on 21 February 2023 to discuss the incident. This would have given the landlord the opportunity to show its understanding of the resident’s concerns and manage her expectations. It also gave the resident the opportunity to provide further information or evidence.
On 28 February 2023 it told the resident it had closed the case as it did not consider the incident to be ASB. The landlord came to this conclusion based on the evidence it received. It was appropriate for the landlord to tell the resident to address her issues with the neighbours directly, as this was in line with its ASB policy. The landlord sent a letter to all resident’s involved in the incident to confirm the outcome of the case.
In May 2023 the resident reported further verbal abuse from a neighbour to the onsite housing manger. It was appropriate that the housing manger dealt with this incident. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it had asked to meet with the resident to discuss the incident, but she refused. It was reasonable that the landlord did not open another ASB case as the resident did not confirm she wanted to pursue the matter. Although it did not open an ASB case it still sent a letter to the resident’s involved. This was pro-active and showed it wanted to resolve the on-going issues.
On 18 September 2023 the resident told the landlord she wanted it to move her. The landlord sent the resident information about its different housing schemes. On 27 September 2023 the landlord said it was unlikely it would move her as an outcome of the complaint. In its stage 2 response it confirmed she would not qualify for a management transfer, which was in line with its lettings policy. The landlord managed the resident’s expectations well and it clearly communicated the options available to her to move.
The evidence shows the landlord offered mediation to the resident several times. After the expiry of the landlord’s complaints procedure, it offered to meet with the resident to discuss the on-going issues with her neighbour. The resident told the landlord she had blocked emails from it, she refused mediation and said she would not attend any further meetings. The relationship between both parties had broken down, however, the evidence shows the landlord tried to remedy this by continuing to contact the resident for updates and offering to meet with her and offer support.
In summary, although it is recognised that the reported ASB caused the resident distress and inconvenience, the landlord acted in line with its ASB policy. It investigated the residents reports of ASB. It communicated effectively and offered appropriate support. When the resident said she wanted to move, it assisted her in applying for alternative accommodation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

We find no maladministration for the landlord’s complaints handling. The reasons for my findings are below.
The landlord’s complaints and compliments policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 17 October 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the next day, which was within its target timescale of 5 working days. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging a meeting with the resident to discuss the complaint before issuing its response.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 3 November 2022; this was 2 days over its target timescale of 10 working days. However, there was no detriment to the resident as the landlord meet with her on 1 November 2022 and discussed its findings on each complaint issue.
On 7 September 2023 we contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf and asked it to escalate her complaint. There was no evidence the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint before this date. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 8 September 2023 which was within its target timescale of 5 working days. The resident declined a telephone call and asked to meet the landlord in person to discuss the complaint. The landlord went above and beyond by agreeing to the resident’s request that it held the meeting in a local library. This was customer focused and showed the landlord wanted to put things right.
The landlord acted reasonably by providing a written response to what was discussed at the meeting and what it determined her complaint to be about. Giving the resident another chance to add to her complaint before it issued its response.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 October 2023. This was within the timescale we gave it, and its policy’s target timescale of 20 working days. Its response was detailed and showed it had fully investigated each of the resident’s complaint issues.
In summary the landlord complied with all its target timescales. Its communication with the resident was excellent and it listened and upheld her preferred communication methods. The landlord showed it wanted to put things right and improve its relationship with the resident.

Determination

There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of staff conduct (paragraph 53.b of the Scheme).
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB (paragraph 52 of the Scheme).
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint (paragraph 52 of the Scheme).

Recommendations

The landlord should consider contacting the resident to see if she has any reasonable adjustments, for example, her preferred communication methods.
The landlord should ensure that its publication of newsletters are compliant with GDPR. It should also ensure all its staff are trained on GPDR.
The resident has told us she has reported ASB from her neighbours in her current property. The landlord should consider contacting the resident to discuss whether there are any support organisations they could signpost her to, who may be able to support her with this.
If it has not already done so the landlord should consider discussing the different forms of mediation with the resident and her neighbours, to see if there is a preferred method they would agree to.