Home Group Limited (202220095)

Background

1. The resident has told the landlord that she is vulnerable and has mental health conditions. She had been reporting one of her neighbours was harassing her and made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) including how a member of its staff responded to her reports.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of ASB including how a member of its staff responded to her reports.
   2. The complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord acknowledged, apologised for, and offered reasonable compensation for some of its failings in how it handled reports of ASB. However, there were failings it did not acknowledge. It provided a reasonable response to reports about staff conduct.
5. The landlord acknowledged, apologised for, and offered compensation for some of its complaint handling failings. However, it did not remedy all its failings or say how it had learnt from them. Its offer of compensation did not fully reflect the impact its failings had on the resident.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

 What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. Under the tenancy agreement residents must not do anything likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to neighbours or other tenants. Within its ASB policy the landlord says it is committed to preventing ASB by dealing with cases effectively. It says it will acknowledge reports and keep residents updated about their cases. It may try early intervention measures, such as warnings or an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC), or mediation where it is safe to do so. The policy says it will investigate within agreed timescales based on risk following a risk assessment. It will work with other agencies such as the police and will take appropriate enforcement action when it has enough evidence.
7. Our role is not to say whether ASB took place or to say how serious any ASB was. Additionally, we cannot make an order for the landlord to move or evict the neighbour. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord handled reports of ASB in line with its policies and legal requirements.
8. When the resident first reported ASB in May 2022 the landlord delayed for 3 weeks before contacting her and opening an ASB case. There is no evidence it completed a risk assessment or an action plan of how it would investigate which was a failing. When she made a further report in July 2022 the landlord again delayed in trying to contact her. It took some steps to investigate by visiting a third-party neighbour, but this was over a month later. Positively, when her MP emailed the landlord in October 2022 it visited her the following day to discuss the issue. Following further enquiry from the resident’s MP, the landlord replied in April 2023 it had contacted the police. It said the police advised they told the resident and the neighbour to keep away from each other. It was positive that it contacted the police for information and was in line with its policy.
9. On 14 May 2024 the resident reported a further ASB incident where she said she had called the police. The landlord appropriately called her the following day to discuss. However, there is no evidence it contacted the neighbour about the allegations, or the police for further information, which was a failing.
10. Within its complaint responses the landlord explained it was not able to move or evict the neighbour and why. Its decision was reasonable and in line with its ASB policy. Additionally, there is a legal process it would need to follow, and it would need a certain level of evidence to do so, which it explained it did not have. Within its stage 1 response it quoted the police as saying it was a “clash of personality”. Whether this was the case or not, it could have been more sensitive to the effects the situation was having on the resident and her mental health.
11. At stage 2 the landlord correctly identified failings in its communication and where it failed to follow its policy. It said it had completed risk assessments, but it has only provided a copy of one to us, which is undated. It should have documented these, and created action plans based on them, which it accepted within its response. The resident has told us initially all she wanted was for the landlord to tell the neighbour to stop the ASB, but it failed to. There is no evidence it spoke directly to the neighbour, issued any warnings, considered an ABC or mediation. Even if these actions would not have been appropriate, the landlord should have evidenced that it had considered them. These were standard steps in tackling ASB which were missed. Additionally, there is no evidence the landlord advised the resident on how to collect evidence of ASB, which was a further failing.
12. Regarding the conduct of one of its members of staff it accepted the staff member’s lack of communication did not meet its standards. The landlord has a code of conduct for staff. However, it could not investigate the part of the complaint about the staff member’s attitude or conduct during a home visit as she no longer worked for it. It did explain this within its response which was reasonable.
13. Within its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for some of its failings and offered £700 compensation. In relation to the failures identified, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
14. The landlord accepted there were failings, apologised, and offered compensation which is in line with our guidance on remedies. However, it did not identify all its failings. While it has not resolved the ASB issues being reported, which may not be possible due to the nature of the allegations, it appropriately remedied some of its failings. Therefore, there was service failure as opposed to maladministration. An order has been made that the landlord pay £100 additional compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

15. The landlord has a complaints policy, which includes timeframes for its acknowledgement and responses to complaints. The policy is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
16. Within the evidence there are several examples of the resident asking to complain about ASB, or to escalate the complaint. For example, on 16 June 2022 the resident asked to make a complaint about the neighbour to the complaints manager. It replied that it would contact its complaints team. The resident wanted to report ASB, and this report would have been dealt with by the relevant member of staff or department, but not by the complaints team. However, the landlord failed to identify or explain the difference to the resident at that time. The resident said she had been trying to escalate her complaint in an email to her MP which was sent to the landlord. Within its response to the MP, it failed to explain it had not raised a complaint. She asked to escalate a complaint again on 31 October 2022 but there is no evidence the landlord responded to her email.
17. In an internal email on 22 November 2022 the landlord clearly explained that the resident was not satisfied with its handling of her reports of ASB. It recognised there had been a clear expression of dissatisfaction and so should have raised a complaint but failed to. Within its stage 2 response the landlord accepted it had not been clear in the difference between escalating an ASB case and raising a complaint through its complaints process. It correctly said it should have checked at the time and said it had failed to raise a complaint in line with its complaints policy.
18. After we contacted the landlord, it acknowledged a stage 1 complaint within its policy timeframe. It also provided its response within its policy timeframe. However, it failed to respond to all elements of the complaint and its response was not in compliance with the Code. When the resident asked to escalate her complaint, the landlord delayed. It asked her to explain her reasons, but this was not in line with the Code, which says that a resident is not required to give reasons. In requiring her to, the landlord caused further distress for the resident. The landlord correctly recognised this and apologised within its stage 2 response.
19. The landlord provided its stage 2 response outside of its policy timeframe. It had also failed to ask for an extension of time, as it could have under its policy and the Code. While it offered compensation for this, it failed to acknowledge or apologise for this failing within its response. The landlord offered £250 compensation for failing to raise her complaint, and for its delay in escalating and responding at stage 2.
20. It is positive that the landlord acknowledged and apologised for most of its failings. However, its initial mishandling of the resident’s attempts to make a complaint were significant. As it had neither explained the difference between an ASB report and a formal complaint, or told her it had not raised a complaint, she believed it had. This led her to try to chase and escalate a complaint which never existed. This caused avoidable distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident over a long period of time. While it was positive the landlord acknowledged this, it did not say how it would learn from it. Additionally, its compensation offer did not fully reflect the effect of its multiple failings.
21. There was service failure, and an order has been made that the landlord pay £100 additional compensation to the resident.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord’s record keeping could be improved. It did not keep full ASB case records including of risk assessments. Additionally, while it kept contact records, these were in several different places rather than under the ASB case, which would have been more organised.

Communication

23. There were failings in communication with the resident, which the landlord identified within its stage 2 response. The records show instances where it did not reply to the resident’s calls and emails, or if it did reply it did not record this.