Citizen Housing Group Limited (202216028)

Background

1. The resident complained to the landlord as she was unhappy with how it dealt with her reports about anti social behaviour (ASB).

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

5. The landlord departed from its ASB policy and did not deal with the resident’s report in May 2022 appropriately.

The landlord’s complaint handling

6. The landlord appropriately acknowledged that it had failed to respond to the resident’s report. However, it did not take steps to put things right.

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.

7. The landlord’s ASB policy says on receipt of a report it will agree an action plan and will keep all parties informed of progress. It expects residents to report all ASB incidents, so that they may be investigated. It also says the reason for closing a case will always be recorded and explained.
8. The resident made a report of ASB to the landlord on 25 April 2022. She was asked to complete an incident diary for 2 weeks. This was an appropriate step by the landlord at this stage to collect further evidence so it could then decide on what actions to take if any were needed.  
9. The resident submitted her incident diary on 23 May 2022 and received an acknowledgement. We have not seen any further response from the landlord or evidence that it reviewed the incident diary. In line with its policy, the landlord should have reviewed the incident diary, created an action plan and carried out a risk assessment. Or if it did not think these actions were necessary to write and explain this to the resident. It is not reasonable that it did not do this and was inappropriate it did not follow its policy.
10. The resident chased for a response to the incident diary on 10 June 2022. The landlord failed to respond appropriately, and the evidence does not suggest that the incident diary was reviewed either. This meant the resident did not know what was happening about her reports of ASB or what further steps the landlord was going to take.  This was not reasonable.
11. The landlord called the resident on 27 July 2023. The resident told the landlord she had been expecting a call from the previous housing officer but had never received one. The landlord appropriately apologised for this. It is noted that a year had passed since the resident’s last contact, but it remains unclear why the landlord had failed to follow the matter up in the intervening period and this was inappropriate.
12. On 28 July 2023 the resident sent the landlord her diary entries from 23 May to 8 July 2022. She also explained she had not recorded any further incidents due to the lack of contact from the landlord. She said she had stopped using her garden and surrounding area unless it was unavoidable as she did not feel safe. The landlord spoke to the resident on 31 July 2023 and appropriately apologised for the lack of contact the previous year and advised how to make further reports.
13. However, we have not seen that the landlord took any steps to support the resident following her comments about feeling unsafe and how she had changed her lifestyle. This was a missed opportunity to explore this issue further, provide support to the resident and explain the importance of reporting incidents promptly so the landlord could investigate them. The landlord could have also assessed if it was appropriate to open an ASB case or carry out a risk assessment based on the resident’s comments at this time. It was not reasonable that it did not explore either of these options or explain why they were not appropriate to the resident.
14. Following contact from the resident’s MP the landlord met with the resident. It reiterated that to take any action, it would need to receive reports of ASB that it could investigate. This was reasonable – and in accordance with the ASB policy which requires the landlord to take proportionate action to tackle ASB based on the reports it receives. The resident confirmed that she had been avoiding areas of the property and interactions with the neighbours. As such, there were no incidents to report. While it is noted that this prevented the landlord from taking action in relation to her neighbours, it is unclear why the resident’s support needs were not considered further at this stage. This was a missed opportunity.
15. The landlord caused distress and inconvenience to the resident by not responding to her diary sheets in May 2022, both at the time and in the months that followed. It also did not investigate her comments about feeling unsafe when she submitted further diary entries in July 2023 and from the March 2024 meeting. While we acknowledge the landlord could not reasonably investigate the historical reports, it did not appropriately explore or take into consideration the impact as stated by the resident.

16. The timescales in the landlord’s policy are compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). We have noted the landlord asked for an extension to respond to the stage 1 complaint. In accordance with the Code this was appropriate as it required further time to investigate the issues. It explained this to the resident and issued the response within the timeframe of the extension request. It issued its stage 2 response within its policy timeframe.
17. The landlord’s responses were timely. However, it is unclear why it did not raise a complaint in February 2024 when the resident expressed concern about its handling of matter via a third party. As it did not, it delayed in dealing with the resident’s concerns formally for almost 4 months.
18. Furthermore, we are not satisfied the landlord put matters right for the resident for the failings it found in its complaint responses. The landlord appropriately found a communication failing for the May 2022 diary submission and its communication in 2023 but it did not take any steps to put things right. This was not reasonable as it did not address the impact this failing had on the resident. Furthermore, it missed an opportunity to fully assess why it failed to respond to the resident’s report appropriately. Had it done so, it could have considered the resident’s position further together with what support it could provide her to be able to enjoy her property.
19. The landlord also failed to appropriately investigate the resident’s concerns about its response to her MP. Namely, the factual content of the landlord’s reply. The landlord did not explain why it believed the information it had provided was correct or show that it had fully investigated the matter. The resident’s concerns were left unaddressed as a result. She was also upset about how the landlord’s version of events portrayed her to her MP. The landlord showed no empathy or reassurance to this concern in its response.
20. Given the cumulative failings, we have determined that there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord’s recording keeping was appropriate and allowed us to fully investigate the issues raised.

Communication

22. The landlord did not appropriately communicate with the resident. It did not call back when it said it would or keep the resident informed about what actions were being taken over her reports of ASB. The landlord may wish to review this and consider ways that it can improve its communication with residents.