Peter Bedford Housing Association Limited (202316491)

Background

1. The resident has been a tenant with the landlord for over 10 years, she lived in supported accommodation until the landlord’s contract with the local council ended in 2016. The landlord has an Enhanced Housing Management (EHM) service which the resident pays for via a service charge. The resident has reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) relating to multiple neighbours since 2014.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord:
   1. handled reports of ASB
   2. dealt with requests for support in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement
   3. handled the resident’s complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. There was maladministration in the handling of the ASB reports
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlords:
      1. requests for support in line with the tenancy agreement
      2. handling of the complaint

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of ASB

4. The landlord failed to follow its own ASB policy by not completing risk assessments, setting expectations, or keeping proper records of its actions and communications. It also repeatedly failed to update the resident or take clear, documented steps to address ongoing reports of ASB.

Requests for support in line with tenancy agreement

5. The landlord explained the EHM service clearly and outlined the support it could provide. It was not required to offer more support because the tenancy agreement did not specify this, and the previous local council-funded support had ended. Its communication showed it was transparent and tried to help within its responsibilities.

Handling of the complaint

6. The landlord followed its complaint process by responding within the correct timeframes for both stages. Although it did not send acknowledgements and the stage 1 response arrived late due to posting, this was an administrative error that did not affect the handling of the complaint or cause harm to 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.

What we will not investigate

7. The resident has reported ASB for a long time. We looked at this for context, but our investigation focuses on February 2022 onwards. Earlier complaints were handled by the landlord which were responded to in 2021 and were not referred to us. We have looked at the most recent reports after the 2021 complaint response, which were included in the formal complaint the resident raised in August 2023.
8. We will look at events up to the landlord’s stage 2 response in September 2023. The resident raised a new complaint after that response, but we have no evidence that the landlord exhausted its complaint procedure. It would not be fair to review the landlord’s actions after September 2023 because it has not had a full chance to respond and put things right.

What we will investigate

9. Between 16 February and 28 March 2022 the landlord opened an ASB case about loud noise from the neighbour. It sent a letter in February 2022 outlining the allegations and a warning letter in March 2022. It also reported the noise to the local council’s ASB team. These steps followed its ASB policy, which says the landlord should write to the alleged perpetrator and decide on action after an investigation. It was positive that the landlord acted quickly during this period.
10. However, the landlord kept no records of contact with the resident. Its ASB policy says it should do a risk assessment, agree how to keep the resident informed, and set expectations. There is no evidence it did any of this. This failure to follow policy and communicate effectively was unreasonable and caused the resident distress.
11. This resident highlighted her distress in a meeting with the landlord on 20 April 2022, saying she was frustrated about the loud music and delays. After the meeting, the landlord discussed the case internally on 6 May 2022, but there is no record of further action or communication. This shows another failure to follow policy and communicate clearly.
12. On 26 May 2022 the resident reported more ASB. On 8 June 2022 the landlord noted that it had reported the matter to the police and listed actions like liaising with management and doing spot checks. But there is no evidence these actions were carried out. This ongoing failure to act and communicate caused significant distress and inconvenience.
13. On 23 August 2022 during a visit to test fire alarms, the resident said the landlord had not acted on the noise nuisance. The landlord recorded this but took no action. This did not meet its ASB policy to respond sensitively and promptly. The same happened on 17 October and 21 November 2022. The landlord was told about ongoing concerns but provided no evidence of action. These repeated failures continued to cause distress and inconvenience.
14. The resident has told us issues with ASB were ongoing and she continued to report issues after November 2022 until her complaint. The landlord has been unable to provide records of these reports or the actions it took during this period. Due to the landlord’s poor record keeping we cannot be certain what happened during this period. However, we consider it likely that reports of ASB were made and not dealt with as this is what the evidence shows throughout the period.
15. The landlord said its lack of record keeping was because much of its contact with the resident was face-to-face, as was the resident’s preference. It admitted during its complaint review that its contact notes were insufficient and has since introduced a new system to improve record-keeping. This is a positive step showing it learned from its mistakes.
16. Between 23 August and 25 September 2023 the resident complained about the landlord’s failure to act on ASB reports. In its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, the landlord said its actions were appropriate and that it worked with agencies like the police and other support services. However, the evidence does not support this. Either the landlord took no action, failed to communicate, did not complete risk assessments, and ignored its policies — or it did act but kept poor records. Either way, the resident was left frustrated and distressed.
17. The landlord’s failures had a significant impact on the resident. The resident has told us she felt unsupported, and her reports were not taken seriously, and this is reflected in the evidence we have seen. The failure to follow its ASB policy damaged her relationship with the landlord and left her with little confidence in its ability to resolve the problem.
18. Based on this we have decided a payment of £500 compensation is fair to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the failures between February 2022 and September 2023. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there has been an adverse impact to a resident.

19. The resident said her tenancy agreement included extra support, like help with benefit forms. In December 2022, the landlord wrote to her about its Enhanced Housing Management (EHM) service. It explained the team could help with things like budgeting, contacting other agencies, dealing with minor ASB, and arranging inspections or repairs.
20. We have a copy of the signed tenancy agreement. It is for supported accommodation but does not list any specific support the landlord must provide. The landlord said it used to have a support contract with the local council, but this ended in 2016 when funding was withdrawn. Instead of moving tenants, the landlord created the EHM service to help people with low-level support needs keep their tenancies.
21. We found the landlord acted reasonably when it explained the EHM service in 2022. It clearly set out what the team does and the support it offers. While we understand the resident may disagree, the landlord is not responsible for the council’s funding decisions.

22. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It should acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It aims to respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. In this case, we did not see any acknowledgements, but both responses were sent within the correct timeframes.
23. The stage 1 response reached the resident after the 10-day timescale because it was posted. The landlord did not allow enough time for delivery. This was an administrative error, but it did not affect how the complaint was handled or cause any harm to the resident.

Learning

Communication

24. In instances where the resident’s preference is to avoid written communication, the landlord may want to consider setting up a clear plan for communication. This can ensure all parties are aware of how updates will be provided and how often. It is also a good way to ensure expectations are managed.