Hastoe Housing Association Limited (202332705)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that an offer of reasonable redress was made which resolved the complaint about the landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
4. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made recommendations to the landlord.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord acknowledged its service failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. It provided the resident with an apology and offered £100 compensation.
6. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy timescales. It demonstrated learning from the complaint.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

7. We acknowledge the resident has a long history of reporting ASB to the landlord. The resident has told us the ASB incident reported is part of a reoccurring pattern of ASB. We acknowledge the distress the ongoing ASB has caused to the resident. Our investigation focuses on the ASB incident reported to the landlord on 8 January 2024. This is because the landlord’s handling of that report formed the basis of the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s responses.
8. The landlord did not categorise the resident’s ASB complaint in line with its ASB procedure. The resident’s report was given a 48 hour priority. As the resident was reporting a hate incident, it should have been treated as high priority, with contact from the case officer within 24 hours. The evidence shows the landlord contacted the resident on 10 January 2024, 2 working days after her report.
9. The resident’s call with an officer on 10 January 2024 was not recorded. To investigate the resident’s concerns, it reviewed the telephone contact note. It also told the resident it had provided feedback to the officer.
10. The resident did not receive any further contact from the landlord until 22 January 202410 days after her initial ASB report. The delay in contact caused the resident distress and made her feel the landlord was not taking her report seriously.
11. We have seen evidence the resident’s report was risk assessed however this is undated. The landlord acknowledged it did not risk assess the case in line with its policy. By not doing so the landlord missed opportunities to provide earlier support to the resident.
12. In line with its procedure, the landlord provided the resident with an action plan. This was positive as it set the resident’s expectations on actions it would take. The evidence shows the landlord liaised with the police, spoke with the neighbour and provided the resident with an update. The landlord’s actions show it investigated the resident’s ASB report.
13. The evidence shows the landlord discussed the resident’s support needs with her. The resident confirmed she was able to access the support she required. The landlord considered the impact of the incident on the resident and her support needs.
14. In its stage 2 response, the landlord committed to a joint visit with the police to consider further action to prevent ASB. It also said it would write to the landowner of a nearby park to raise the resident’s concerns. We have seen evidence that the landlord completed these actions. The landlord took a problem-solving approach to try to prevent further ASB incidents.
15. The landlord acknowledged failures in its handling of the resident’s ASB report, apologised, and offered £100 compensation. We consider this offer proportionate to the identified shortcomings. While the landlord’s failings caused the resident distress, we do not consider that this significantly affected how the case was managed overall. The compensation reasonably reflects the impact on the resident.
16. The resident has told us that she continues to experience problems with ASB.  Whilst we have not investigated the landlord’s handling of other reports in this case, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to contact her to discuss her current ASB concerns.

17. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will acknowledge stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 2 working days. It aims to respond fully within 10 working days for stage 1 complaints and 20 working days for stage 2 complaints. The evidence shows the landlord met these timeframes and responded in line with its policy.
18. The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns by discussing the complaint with her, reviewing internal records, and following up with officers when information could not be located.

Learning

Communication

19. The landlord demonstrated learning from the resident’s complaint including staff training and updating its ASB procedure to offer a visit for all reports of hate related incidents.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The evidence shows that the landlord’s contact notes were not always promptly input into its system. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of actions it has taken.